-
It is crystal clear on facts that the assessee never asked for the copy of the reasons during the entire assessment and appellate proceedings, and therefore, there was no obligation as well as occasion for the AO to supply copy of the reasons to the assesse.
Smt. Malti Khandelwal Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24308 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
The addition under 56 (2) (vii) (c) being the difference between alleged fair market value of shares and the subscribed value of shares was not sustainable. It was only when a higher than proportionate allotment of fresh shares issued by a company was received by a shareholder, the provisions of section 56 (2) (vii) get attracted.
DCIT Vs Smt. Veena Goyal
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24307 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2)(vii)(c)
-
It is not in dispute that the eligibility to the balance additional depreciation in the succeeding year introduced vide Finance Act 2015 is available to the assesse. However the amendment is not applicable to the year under consideration as it is effective from 01.04.2016.
Vedanta Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24306 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 32(1)(iia)
-
The details of value of tangible assets taken over by the assessee by the slump sale agreement are necessary to be considered for adjudication of this issue.
Demag Delaval Industries Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24299 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee made provision of Rs. 10.24 crore and ultimately made expenses of Rs. 10.46 crore, which clearly demonstrate that assessee made the provision after due diligence which cannot be said to be an adhoc provision.
DCIT Vs M/s HDFC Sales Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24298 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 37, 40(a)(ia)
-
Once the corresponding liability in the accounts had been shown, the depreciation on the asset should be given irrespective of the fact that for that year only part payment was made for acquisition of the asset.
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs M/s V.Hotels Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24291 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The present writ petitions raise substantial questions of law.
TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL III HOLDINGS Vs THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) & ORG
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24290 (HC-DELHI)
-
As per section 54F of the Act, the assessee was only required to have construction on the plot for residential purpose and that condition had been fulfilled by the assessee to construct two rooms with boundary wall and an iron entry gate on said plot which was not disputed either by AO or CIT (A).
Sarita Devi Garg Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24289 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
An exception has been carved out in Article 5(5) to exclude an agent from being treated as a PE, if such agent is of an independent status and provides services to the enterprise in the ordinary course of its business.
Overseas Transport Co. Ltd. Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24282 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
It is settled law that in case of unaccounted sales only profit therefrom could only be taxed as income of assessee.
Shri Nawal Kishore Soni Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24269 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 68
-
Section 10B (5) read with Rule 16E mandates that the assessee had to file audit report in Form-56G for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee had not filed any audit report in Form-56G which was a mandatory requirement for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Therefore, the deduction u/s 10B of the Act cannot be thirst upon the assessee.
Karle International Private Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24268 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Since the payment was not for fees for technical services and further the payment was made to the non residential company having no permanent establishment or business connection in India, the alleged payment for procurement of orders are not subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act.
M/s. Snap Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (IT & TP)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24266 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 195
-
The requirement of formal issue of completion certificate from local authority within the time period is not mandatory in nature and if the project is found to be completed within the time period on evidence, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB cannot be denied.
ACIT Vs Kaiser Jamil Khan
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24265 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80IB(10)
-
When an assessee whose business is to develop real estates, is in a position to perform certain acts towards the acquisition of land, that would clearly show that it is ready to commence business and, as a corollary, that it has already been set-up.
Crown Home Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24264 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The payment made to non-resident/foreign company towards services rendered outside India, payee had no business connection in India and the services provided by the agents were not managerial in nature. Therefore, the payment made for the said services were not covered u/s 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and not chargeable to tax as fees for technical services in India.
M/s Future Retail Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24263 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
The superior courts have held the Income Tax Act to be a welfare legislation, meaning thereby that the tax-payer practical circumstances have to be looked into by the quasi-judicial authority while undertaking assessment proceedings and penal proceedings, thus considering the totality of the facts AO is directed to delete the penalty so levied.
ACIT Vs M/s Gepach International
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24262 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Sometimes, the method applied as per rule 8D (2) (iii) gives absurd results, like the disallowance is more than the actual administrative expenses.
Smt. Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24261 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
There are several instances where residential properties are put to use for non-residential purposes and this cannot be a test to decide the nature of the property under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially, in assessee's case, where the letting out of the property for non-residential purpose was much after the purchase on 03.02.2011 and the lease agreement was on 21.03.2011.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Ramesh Shroff
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24260 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 54F
-
The inspection and ensure of quality of fabric, scheduled shipment of raw material and other related services rendered by the non-resident company would not fall within the ambit of FTS as contemplated u/s. 9(i)(vii) of the Act.
JEANS KNIT PVT. LTD Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24259 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Plain reimbursement to a non-resident would not be income chargeable under the Act, and consequently, should not attract obligation to deduct tax source.
Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24252 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.