-
The payment under section 36(1)(va) would be allowed in respect to the payment of employee contribution towards ESI if such payment is made on/before due date as specified under the relevant Act.
Morakhia Copper and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23121 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 36(1)(va)
-
Payment of TDS by the assessee would relate back to the date of presentation of cheques by the assessee to the banker.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VERSUS DCIT (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23120 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84483&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The whereabouts of the investor companies were within the knowledge of the assessee. When such entities were not to be found in the addresses furnished by the assessee, it was incumbent upon the assessee to produce them before the AO to prove their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Burden stands shifted to the assessee.
KNS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23112 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The preparation of the site plan for developing the colony shall be the actual date of conversion of the agricultural land into stock-in-trade.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Dr. Radhey Shyam Garg
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23111 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
The Primary Cooperative Societies had acted as business correspondents to pass on the cash benefit as mandated by the State Government therefore at least this part of the transaction between the petitioners and their member-Societies would qualify for being exempted under the proviso to Section 194N of the Act.
Tirunelveli District Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23110 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections 194N, 201
-
Capital gains shall be deemed to have accrued (1) upon making the award (in case of ordinary acquisition u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894) or (2) after expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notification u/s 9(1) of the 1894 Act (in case of urgent acquisition).
RAJ PAL SINGH Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23109 (SC)
-
Neither the issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) to the amalgamating company i.e a non-existent entity be construed as a notice issued to the amalgamated company, nor the same be validated by bringing it within the realm of a procedural irregularity within the meaning of Sec. 292B.
Siemens Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23102 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 143(2)
-
When the assessee company had been assessed to tax under the deeming provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of additions/disallowances made under the normal provisions of the Act could have been imposed upon the assessee.
M/s Flemingo Travel Retail Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23101 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
The assessee was entitled to depreciation on goodwill.
Geodis Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23097 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since there is no exempt income in these two years. Section 14A is not triggered.
DCIT Vs M/s Cornerstone Property Investment (P) Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23096 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
The provisions of section 50C of the Act could not be applied to sale development rights of land owned by the assessee.
M/s. Network Construction Company Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23095 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 50C
-
The payment of Rs.89 lakhs on account of pension to wholetime Directors on the basis of Board resolution of the assessee company was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee and was allowable as deduction.
ACIT Vs M/s. Tata Sons Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23088 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
In the case of the assessee herein on 07-11-2001, the investigation wing of department after almost one year has only converted the non-existent prohibitory order into deemed seizure, and therefore in the present case the panchnama dated 07-11-2001 is only for the purposes of extending the limitation period.
Narang International Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23087 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The said amount was paid towards advertisement and publicity enabling the assessee company to advertise its real estate projects by way of display boards in all the matches at Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium. This obviously improved the performance of the functioning of the assessee company and hence, the same would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23086 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is a settled law that upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, the amalgamating Company ceased to exist in the eyes of law & it cannot be regarded as a person in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act and consequently no assessment proceeding can be initiated or an assessment order can be passed.
Duke Arnics Electronics Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23085 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In all the co-ordinate bench decisions, there was no discussion to the connotations of the expression paid and these decisions simply proceeded on the basis that because the expression paid was used in Article 11(1) of Indo Cyprus tax treaty, the taxability of interest could only be on cash basis.
Ampacet Cyprus Limited Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23084 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since, the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act in the form of industrial, business and commercial rights, the assessee would be eligible for depreciation u/s.32 of the Act.
M/s. Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23083 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The decision which was not cited by the Revenue or relied upon by the Revenue at the time of hearing cannot be a ground for mistake in the order of the Tribunal when the Tribunal has followed the various other decisions of Hon'ble High Courts as well as decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court.
Shri Kailash Chand Bangur Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23082 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Assessee had complied with all the conditions of grant of stay which was granted earlier and further, that the non disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee since the matter is pending for adjudication by a Third Member.
M/s Gujranwala Jewellers (BSG) Vs The Asst.CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23081 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
It is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of Section 271(1)(c). This has certainly vitiated the order of penalty.
Shri. Omprakash T. Mehta Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23080 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.