-
In the absence of any nexus between the unaccounted income & unexplained investment/expenditure, AO had rightly denied set off.
CIT Vs MANOJBHAI BHUPATRAI VADODARIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23015 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 28, 37
-
AO cannot change the method adopted by the assessee for valuing the market value of the shares from discounted cash flow method to net asset value method by merely relying on the actual results in the subsequent years and arbitrarily coming to the conclusion that projections were not achieved.
Karmic Labs Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23014 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Expense incurred by the assessee should be treated as revenue expenditure.
M/s Landis+ Gyr Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23013 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Mere fact that the investment the investment has been made in the name of the wife cannot be a reason for disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the Act.
Sh. Shankar Lal Kumawat Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23012 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 54
-
Limitation provided for passing order u/s 201(1) for subjects AY expired prior to amended Sec 201(3) coming into force and hence a right has been accrued in favour of the assesse.
HCL Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23011 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 201(1), 201(3)
-
Since assessment was made under regular provisions, the assessee was allowed to carry forward deficit of earlier years and set off against current year income in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
KWA Trust Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23004 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
The expenditure incurred which has resulted in increase in capital base of the assessee company has rightly been treated by the Assessing officer as a capital expenditure
M/s Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23000 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Sale value declared by the assessee is only 46% of the SRO value of ₹ 16,54,500/-. Since the property sold by the assessee is a litigated property, I am of the considered view that the market value of the property cannot exceed the actual sale consideration received by the assessee of ₹ 7,56,250/-.
ARUNA KOMMURI, HYDERABAD VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 4 (1), HYDERABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22999 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84211&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that both assessee's father and brother own substantial areas of agricultural land. Therefore, the agricultural income disclosed by them cannot be disputed unless some facts emerged that they have not carried on agricultural activities or have suffered losses in the agricultural activities. Normally farmers do not rely on the banking channel for conducting their day to day activities and do accumulate cash balance.
LOKADRI NAIDU GEDDAM, CHITTOOR. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2 (1) , TIRUPATI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22998 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84215&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Stamp duty expenses incurred for taking the property under consideration on lease for a period of 33 years was to be construed as an intangible asset within the meaning of Sec. 32(1)(ii), and thus eligible for depreciation, cannot be accepted. Apart from that, we are also unable to comprehend that as to how a simpliciter payment of stamp duty expenses on the lease agreement (pending registration), would bring into existence an intangible asset of the same genus, as that of the six specified categories of assets, viz., knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses or franchises, as contemplated in Sec. 32(1)(ii).
GOLDMOHAR DESIGN AND APPAREL PARK LTD. VERSUS PR. CIT-7, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22997 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84216&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When we peruse the order of assessment, we find there is no discussion at all as rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR on this very fact regarding the difference in figures in the original return and corrected computation.
HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22996 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84217&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee's case that this advance is paid to the holding Company for the investments made by them for securing land to be developed by the assessee.There is a Joint Development Agreement in which the assessee and the holding Company agreed to share profits at the rate of 50% each.
M/S. HANSA ESTATES P. LTD., VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE-II (2) CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22995 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83170&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer was not aware of the amalgamation of the company moreover, the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 had been filed on 07.03.2016 in the name of OAS by the appellant confirming the position that OAS was a functioning entity. Further, income tax refund issued by the Department in favour of OAS has been duly received and encashed by the appellant. Therefore, appellant cannot canvass the point that OAS was nonexistent and the proceedings initiated in its name would be bad in law.
M/S. OASYS GREEN TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD – 5 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22994 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83171&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Vide Circular 23/2019 the cases arising from bogus long term capital gain as sale of penny stock are placed in the exception of mandatory limit and thus its appeal is required to be decided on merits instead of dismissing the appeal due to low tax effect.
The DCIT Vs Shri Krishan kumar Gupta
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22993 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Statement furnished by the assessee under section 132(4) of the Act, during the search proceedings and note that even in the statement there was no reference to any such material found during the course of search for the income disclosed by the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 153A.
M/S GURUPRASAD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22992 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84173&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As far as the payment to Honda motor Japan is concerned, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2009- 10. Wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Herbalife. We note that Hon'ble High Court in the case of Herbalife (supra) has also considered the amendment in provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act by way of insertion of sub-clause(ia) w.e.f. 01/04/2005.
M/S. HONDA CARS INDIA LTD. VERSUS DCIT, LTU, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22991 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84175&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
This issue is entirely covered in assessee's own case by the judgment and order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in favour of the assessee.
MEGHMANI ORGANICS LIMITED VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1), AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22990 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84178&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO while computing the income of the assessee had taken into account, the purchases made in cash and thereafter had calculated the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had reproduced the decision in the case of Banwarilal Bansidhar Wherein the High Court has deleted the addition over and above the estimation of profit done by the Assessing Officer, as the High Court was of the opinion that the said element of purchase in cash was subsumed in the income calculated by the Assessing Officer.
SANJAY TRADERS VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1) (4), AURAIYA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22989 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84188&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to find out the investments which have yielded dividend income and to take into the same for considering the average value of investment. So far as the interest expenditure for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A we find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that bank guarantee commission, interest on TDS, interest on service tax, interest on professional tax, interest paid to clients on advance brokerage, interest on clients' margins money, etc. cannot be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-21 (1), CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22988 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84191&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is settled law that at the time of registration, the authority need to satisfy himself that the objects are charitable in nature and the activities being carried out are genuine, meaning thereby that the activities are in consonance for achieving the charitable objects and nothing else.
KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-DURGAPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22987 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84192&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.