-
Sec.21AA does not enlarge the field of taxpayers but only plugs evasion as the association of persons must be formed with members who have indeterminate shares in its income or assets, which is not the situation in the present case.
M/S BANGALORE CLUB Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24191 (SC)
-
While computing capital gains, the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition is to be considered for the purpose of computing tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act.
M/S. Best Trading And Agencies Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24190 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 115JB
-
The amount spent on renovation of such residential house by an assessee according to his requirements is allowable as exempt u/s.54F of the Act as it would amount to construction of a residential house.
Ms. Juveria Begum Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23178 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 54F
-
Sec. 154 cannot be applied in case of a change of opinion by the AO or a debatable issue which requires to be established by arguments.
Shri Sandeep Bhargava (''HUF') Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23171 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Sections 54B, 154
-
The donation to Brahma Kumaris merits to be disallowed in the hands of the assessee, as it is case of charity. The same may be looked into as per the provision of section 80G of the Act.
Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt.Ltd. Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23170 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37
-
Merely having surplus in one year does not change the character of the trust to a business or profit-making entity which was otherwise a charitable trust advancing work of general public utility and certainly not hit by the first proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act.
Credai- Pune Metro Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23169 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 11
-
Since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not available in the statute as on the date of entering into the agreement, the same (Sec. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)) cannot be made applicable to the assesse.
Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sri Anala Anjibabu
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23168 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)
-
One more opportunity required to be provided to the assessee for adjudicating both the cases on merit. However, the assessee has agreed to pay cost of Rs 5000/- . In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we restore this ex-parte order to the file of ld. CIT(E) for deciding afresh.
Yug Prabhavak Trust Vs CIT(Exemption)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23167 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 12AA
-
Provisions of Section 234C does not apply to any shortfall in the payment of the tax due on the returned income if such shortfall is on account of underestimation of the amount of capital gain.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs IFCI LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23166 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 234C
-
When there is no satisfaction recorded by the ld. AO in the quantum assessment order and penalty initiated on one limb and ultimately levied on different limb of the assessee, then in such cases, the penalty levied deserved to be cancelled.
M/s. Emco Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23165 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Vide the provisions to Section 244A(1)(a), the legislature clearly laid down that no interest is allowable in case the refund arise out of the prepaid taxes such as TCS/TDS/Advance Tax is less than 10% of the tax.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23158 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 244A(1)(a)
-
Since, the off shore supply contracts were not taxable in India but TDS was deducted in India therefore assessee was eligible for refund of TDS Credit.
M/s. ABB AB C/o ABB India Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23146 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Even if the formula for calculation of tax liability under two different statutes enacted under different entries in List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution was similar, that would not make the fields of legislation under the two entries overlapping.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23145 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - The term local authority cannot be rigidly interpreted to mean only a local government as such the Mumbai Port Trust has to be treated as a local authority u/s 23 of the Act.
ACIT 4 (3) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. TAJ IRON & STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23140 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84559&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even if a process is fully automated and there is no human intervention, still the particular activity or technical analysis may fall into the definition of technical services.
Havells India Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23139 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Income from letting out of premises /developed-space along with other facilities in an industrial park or SEZ would be charged as business income.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Tidel Park Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23126 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Even if the audit report is not filed in Form No.56F along with the original return, it is not fatal, provided the assessee subsequently files the same and satisfy all other conditions mentioned for claiming deduction u/s 10A.
M/s. Krythium Solutions Private Limited Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23125 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 10A
-
There is nothing on record to which it can be assumed that the own money has been introduced on account of demerger of the investment division of Hemant Tools Pvt. Ltd.
DCIT Vs M/s. Jayvik Foresight Innovations and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23124 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
For triggering the provisions of the proviso (ii) to section 54F (1), the pre requirement is this that the assessee has purchased one more residential house other than the new asset within one year after the date of transfer of the original asset and this is not enough that some ownership right is acquired by him in such property within such time which has not accrued to him on account of purchase.
Shree Anil Dev Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23123 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Merely on the ground that trademark was earlier i.e. prior to present assessment year not registered cannot be the ground for making disallowance.
Imtiara Consultants P. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23122 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.