All landmark rulings

1. Direct Tax ·ITAT Indore · 16 Oct 2020
   ITAT - Since there was no “mens rea” or other "mal intention" for deducting TDS at a lower or wrong rate on property purchase, No penalty u/s. 271C.

   Shri Jitendra Sharma Vs JCIT (Intl Taxation)

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24444 (ITAT-INDORE)

2. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 16 Oct 2020
   No deduction for the aforesaid provision was claimed by the assessee while computing its income for the year in which it was created i.e A.Y 2013-14, the inclusion of the same on its reversal in the books of account during the year in question i.e A.Y 2017-18 would undoubtedly lead to a double taxation in its hands.

   BNP Paribas India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

3. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 16 Oct 2020
   This claim of expenditure is against the trade practice and the assessee appears to have borne the expenses only on the reasoning that the same was charged upon it by its parent company.

   M/s. Nike India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24442 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37

4. Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 15 Oct 2020
   Deletion of penalty is upheld following jurisdictional HC ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Ltd. and recent ruling in Ryatara Sahakari Karkhane Niyamitha, for AO's failure to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated.

   ACIT Vs Smt. Mamatha Mohan

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24441 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

5. Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 15 Oct 2020
   Provision of section 195 are not applicable to the reimbursement of demurrage charges paid to the non-resident shipping company on behalf of the assessee by Wilmar Trading Pvt. Ltd.

   Gokul Refoils & Solvent Ltd. Vs The Dy. CIT, International Taxation

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24440 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 195

6. Direct Tax ·ITAT Hyderabad · 15 Oct 2020
   The commission retained by the credit card company is therefore in the nature of normal banking charges and not in the nature of commission for acting on behalf of the merchant establishment.

   Asst. Commissioner of Income – tax Vs Head Infotech India Pvt. Ltd.

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24439 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 194H

7. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 15 Oct 2020
   The assessee can compute tax at the rate beneficial to it which is in accordance of provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, wherein the expression to the extent makes it evident that provisions of the Act or Treaty, whichever is beneficial, is applicable to the assessee.

   IBM World Trade Corporation Vs The Director of Income Tax

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24432 (HC-KARNATAKA)

8. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 14 Oct 2020
   It is noteworthy here that 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act restricts the total depreciation which can be claimed in case of succession etc. to depreciation which would have been allowable had there been no succession.

   Padmini Products (P) Ltd Vs The DCIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24425 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 32(1)

9. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 13 Oct 2020
   Even if we go by economical considerations, the burden of DDT falls on the shareholders rather than on the company, as the amount of distributed profits available for shareholders stands reduced to the extent of DDT levied.

   Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs The Addl. C.I.T

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24418 (ITAT-DELHI)

10. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 13 Oct 2020
    Advance received against the land held as stock-in-trade not covered by Sec. 56(2)(ix).

    Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24417 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(ix)

11. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 12 Oct 2020
    Once a statutory amendment is being made to remove an undue hardship to the assessee or to remove an apparent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced.

    The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Vummudi Amarendran

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24410 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 50C

12. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 09 Oct 2020
    The assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default in respect of payments made for purchase of licensed software prior to 15.10.2011, being the date of pronouncement of the decision in the case of Samsung Electronics.

    M/s. Acer India Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (IT)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24394 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

13. Direct Tax ·ITAT Cuttack · 09 Oct 2020
    The necessary condition under proviso to Sec. 147 is that escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly and merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen the assessment.

    DCIT Vs M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24393 (ITAT-CUTTACK)

14. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 09 Oct 2020
    Mere receipt of service using equipment under the control, possession and operation of service provider would only be transaction of a service and not to use or right to use an equipment, and would not attract Royalty under the Act or the Tax Treaty.

    Telstra Singapore Pte.Ltd. Vs The DCIT (International Taxation)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24392 (ITAT-DELHI)

15. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 09 Oct 2020
    The relevant point of time at which consideration received as share application money pending allotment becomes consideration for issue of shares, is when shares are allotted/issued to the share applicant.

    Taaq Music Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24391 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)

16. Direct Tax ·ITAT Kolkata · 08 Oct 2020
    Assessee has failed to demonstrate the total turnover before expenses, which was required by the assessing officer and ld CIT(A), thus assessee has failed to substantiate his claim, hence there should be made an addition of INR 17,95,000 as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act.

    Rajnarayan Prasad Singh, Guwahati Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24390 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68

17. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 08 Oct 2020
    Membership of a stock exchange not only has an element of permanency but also has the element of being a source of income and, therefore, it must be held to be in the nature of a capital asset.

    M/s. BGSE Financials Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24389 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

18. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 08 Oct 2020
    By deciding the question of limitation of AY 2000-01 against Revenue, and by holding that there was no tax liability for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05, these two sets of orders passed by ITAT have resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be permitted.

    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Emgeeyar Pictures P.Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24382 (HC-MADRAS)

19. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 08 Oct 2020
    It cannot be held that revenue derived by the assessee for distribution of products is taxable as royalty albeit it is a business income of the assessee.

    Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc. Vs DDIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24381 (ITAT-DELHI)

20. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 07 Oct 2020
    The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Assessing Officer by virtually reopening the proceedings concluded under Section 201 of the Act pursuant to the order dated 03.2.2014 passed by the CIT(A) concerned.

    M/s.Sutherland Global ServicesPvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-6

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24370 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 40(i)(ia)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.