All landmark rulings

1. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 07 Oct 2020
   In respect of non- residents, Sec. 195 puts an obligation on the payer, i.e. any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, to deduct income-tax at source at the rates in force and thus the entire tax is to be deducted at source which is payable on such payments made by the payer to the non-resident.

   Texas Instruments Incorporated Vs The Director Income Tax

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24369 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 234B

2. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 06 Oct 2020
   Assessee has an option to adopt NAV method or DCF method and unless the AO is able to bring out any evidence of abuse of benevolent provisions with an intention to defraud the revenue, the option given to the assessee shall be held to be absolute.

   Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.VVA Hotels Private Limited

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24368 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 56(2)(viib)

3. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 06 Oct 2020
   In the light of the lockdown such explanation cannot be brushed aside or rejected as being flimsy or frivolous. This is more so in view of the beneficial nature of the order dated 03.04.2020.

   Vijaykumar Satramdas Lakhani Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and another

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24367 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 197

4. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 05 Oct 2020
   When a new rule in place of an old rule is substituted, the old one is never intended to keep alive and the substitution has the effect of deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative.

   Autodesk Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Director of Income Tax

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24365 (HC-KARNATAKA)

5. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 05 Oct 2020
   There is no provision under the Income-tax Act for an assessee to have any such registered office and the company can opt any address under the Income-tax Act for communication by the revenue with the assessee as is specifically mentioned in the Rule 127.

   Jindal Fittings Ltd. Vs DCIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24364 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68

6. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 02 Oct 2020
   Since the information furnished by the deductors to Income Tax authorities refers to the assessee only and not to the investors, the AO was required to give credit to the assesse.

   Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Mile Stone Real Estate

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24353 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

7. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 01 Oct 2020
   In terms of Section 14A, the only expenditure, which was proved to be incurred in relation to earning of tax free income, could be disallowed and such provision could not be extended to disallow the expenditure, which was assumed to have been incurred for earning tax free income.

   The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Celebrity Fashion Ltd.

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24346 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A

8. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 01 Oct 2020
   In case, a residential unit is allotted prior to 01.04.2010, the conveyance in such a residential unit can be registered subsequently also and in such a case also the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB (10).

   Mandavi Builders Vs The CIT, The DCIT

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24345 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 80-IB

9. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 01 Oct 2020
   The delay in filing of statement is to be counted from the date of payment of TDS because before the payment of TDS, the quarterly statement cannot be filed and if we compute the delay in this manner, the delay is of 12 days only.

   Shri. Sandeep Samantha Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

   (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24344 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 234E

10. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 01 Oct 2020
    Once genuineness of the borrowing is proved, it is not within the powers of the AO to disallow the deduction on the ground that the rate of interest is unreasonably high or that the assessee had himself charged a lower rate of interest on the money which it has advanced.

    DLF Limited Vs JCIT, DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24343 (ITAT-DELHI)

11. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 30 Sep 2020
    The assessee was not able to prove by any evidence to justify retraction from the earlier admission on disclosing the sale transaction in the original return of income disclosing capital gains. However, the assessee by claiming now it to be Family Settlement tried to defraud the Revenue to reduce the taxable returned income.

    Smt. Soni Sonu Vs The ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24342 (ITAT-DELHI)

12. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 29 Sep 2020
    It is well settled rule of statutory interpretation that when a situation has been expressed differently, the legislation must be taken to have been tended to express a different intention.

    Brigade Enterprises Ltd Vs The CIT, The DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24335 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 80IB(10)(c)

13. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 29 Sep 2020
    Section 47(iii) makes it very clear that any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust shall not be liable to income tax under the head capital gains and the proviso to the said section is also not applicable to the present case.

    Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24334 (HC-BOMBAY)

14. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 29 Sep 2020
    Once, it was established that bank account was not belongs to assessee and he was not a beneficial owner, then further additions towards estimated return of income on said unexplained money is arbitrary.

    Mr. Kamal Galani Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24333 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

15. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 28 Sep 2020
    The tax treaty cannot be thrust upon an assessee. In case the assessee during one year does not opt for the tax treaty, it would not be precluded from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years.

    Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24326 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

16. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 29 Sep 2020
    Where the addition in the income were made on estimate basis that itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.

    Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(1) Vs M/s. Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24325 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

17. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 25 Sep 2020
    In view of the matters having already taken long so far to be decided right from AY 2002-03 to AY 2009-10, after which about 10-11 years have now passed by, we request the learned Tribunal to decide the appeals now within a period of six months from today.

    M/s. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24312 (HC-MADRAS)

18. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 25 Sep 2020
    Time limit for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) ended on 30th Sept 2017, thus the notice was issued beyond period of limitation.

    M/s Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24311 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 143(2)

19. Direct Tax ·ITAT Kolkata · 25 Sep 2020
    Since the right in the flat was acquired at the time of booking on 08.11.2009, accordingly the right in the property was held for more than three years before its transfer on 23.11.2013 and therefore, capital gains were, in the nature of Long term capital gains.

    Ashok Behl Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24310 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

20. Direct Tax ·ITAT Visakhapatnam · 25 Sep 2020
    There is no reason to disbelieve the statement given by the assessee that the payments were given for meeting petty cash or miscellaneous expenses and were in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10000 only, thus the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.

    Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Manchukonda Shyam

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24309 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)

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