-
The period levying the penalty had to be counted from the date of payment of tax because the delay in filing the return till the date of payment of tax was already explained on the ground that the assessee could not pay the taxes for which separate penal provisions exist.
M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24251 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The assessee was entitled to claim the business expenses in respect of the income from the services provided and hiring of equipment, and statutory deductions u/s 24 (a) of the Act insofar as the income from the house property was concerned. Therefore, AO is directed to allow the statutory deduction u/s 24 (a) of the Act and the interest incurred in respect of the house property.
Chander Nagar Chemicals And Mineral Private Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24250 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The discount given to the customers cannot be subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act and accordingly, disallowance of discount given to the customers under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unwarranted.
Tata Sky Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24249 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
This amendment clearly suggests that right to use spectrum is not covered by the provisions of Section 35ABB of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee had correctly claimed depreciation u/s 32 of the Act prior to insertion of Section 35ABA under the statute.
Vodafone India Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24242 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 35ABA
-
A transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals.
ITO Vs M/s Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24241 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 61
-
On reading of the order of the lower authorities we do not find mention of any of the provisions of the income tax act which provides that short payment of dividend distribution tax may be added to the income of the assessee and assessee can further be saddled with payment of tax on such short payment of dividend distribution tax.
DLF Limited Vs Addl. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24234 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Findings of the AO nowhere establishes that the transaction was undertaken by the assessee to evade taxes.
M/s. Vodafone India Limited Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
It may be appropriate to have a Committee of legal experts presided by a retired Judge to give their imprimatur to the settlement so that such apprehensions do not come in the way of arriving at a settlement.
NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVEDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24232 (SC)
-
Assessee's contract was composite and consequently that the assessee had failed to make a full and true disclosure of income, as putting the cart before the horse.
Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, International Taxation – 1 Vs M/s.Hitachi Power Europe GmbH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24217 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Attempt to blame the Chartered Accountant cannot result in the assessee's exoneration.
M/s.Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24216 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Transfer pursuant to approval of scheme of arrangement, is not a contractual transfer but a statutorily approved transfer and cannot be brought within the definition of the word sale.
M/s.Areva T & D India Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24215 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 50B
-
Advance received by assessee in subject AY 2007-08 pursuant to entering into development agreement and which was returned in 2015 upon cancellation of DA, not taxable as income from other sources.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.City Lubricants Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24214 (HC-MADRAS)
-
In the context of the seller, Sec.50C allows exemption for a variance of 5% between stamp valuation & sales consideration, thus applying the same analogy AO is directed to ignore the difference being less than 10% for the purposes of Sec.56(2)(vii)(b).
Sri Sandeep Patil Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24213 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
In the facts of the present case, section 50D of the Act was applicable because the consideration to be received by the assessee was 50% of super built up area in the form of commercial complex etc. to be constructed by the builder.
Shri. Vivekanand Padegal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24212 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 50D
-
CIT(A) had rightfully allowed deduction on account of penal interest paid to RBI for non-maintenance of SLR and CRR including especially the provision made for the same to the extent of Rs.6,13,89,000/-.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs The Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24211 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
The allowability or otherwise of interest payment u/s 36 (1) (iii) depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
M/s.Hansa Estates P. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24204 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
A newspaper report was only a hearsay evidence and cannot be treated as proof of facts reported therein, holds that the amount has been reported in the news articles relied upon by the A.O. without carrying out adequate due diligence and without being ratified by the assessee or the investors, which does not in any case constitute adequate material on record.
ACIT Vs M/s. Reindeer Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24203 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
A reading of the provision of section 40A (3) of the Act makes the intention of the legislature quite clear to disallow any expenditure incurred in cash whether in Indian currency or in foreign currency, if it exceeds the amount of Rs. 20,000 in rupee term.
Ramlord Apparels Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24202 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40A(3)
-
The investment in the new asset for the purpose of deduction under Section 54F need not be out of sale consideration received on sale of the original asset.
Ms.Moturi Lakshmi Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24199 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 54
-
For Sec.10B deduction purposes there is no need to establish the direct nexus between the income and the undertaking and where the assessee is engaged in the sole activity of export, entire business income of the 100% EOU will be the profits of the business of the undertaking.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24198 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10B
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.