-
Where assessee was having substantial rights in property as tenant (sub-tenant) and it was not merely a licence holder, amount received on surrender of such tenancy/sub-tenancy rights would be taxable as capital gains.
Yogini Mohit Sahita Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22986 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bank guarantee commission, interest on TDS/ service tax/ professional tax, interest paid to clients on advance brokerage, interest on clients' margins money, etc. cannot be considered for the purposes of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
Religare Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22985 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
In the return of income, though the assessee has claimed TCS, however, in absence of reflection of the TCS in the name of the assessee in Form No. 26AS, while processing the return of income, the credit of TCS has not been granted to the assessee.
SHRI KAMAL TAK VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3), AJMER.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22984 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84148&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penalty has been initiated in respect amount admitted by the assessee pursuant to search conducted on 13.08.2013. Given that the assessee had only disclosed a sum of ₹ 5.2 lacs in the revised return filed on 9.11.2013, subsequent to date of search and thereafter, in the return filed on 16.02.2015 in response to notice u/s 153A, the Assessing officer has brought the balance amount of ₹ 80,000/- to tax during the course of assessment proceedings.
SH. PAWAN MUNDRA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL, KOTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22983 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84150&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The instant case, Smt. Saraswati Vithaldas Sahita occupied the said flat at 2nd floor of the building known as Gangasagar on license basis. This is crystal clear from the Consent Term before the Hon'ble Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, quoted at length earlier. After demise of Mrs. Saraswati Vithaldas Sahita, her son Shri Vidyut Sahita occupied the said flat with his family.
YOGINI MOHIT SAHITA VERSUS ITO, WARD-2 (1) (3), MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22982 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84151&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As relying on VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. We find substance in the argument made by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee to this effect that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. In that view of the matter we find it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for re-computing the disallowance under Section 14A in terms of the observation made hereinabove.
GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS ASST. CIT CIRCLE-2 (1) (1), AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22981 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84154&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal is final fact finding authority and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal it is clear that the Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as revenue and thereafter has arrived at findings of fact. Tribunal has sustained the addition with regard to the interest income as it was found as a matter of fact that the interest calculated by the assessing officer was a gross calculation about amount to be received and paid by the group as a whole.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS NAMAN ASSOCIATES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22980 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83150&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
By virtue of scheme of amalgamation all the existing and the future litigation of the transferor company will be transferred and continued in the name of transferee company viz., M/s.Accenture Services Private Limited with effect from 1st April 2012. This M/s. Accenture Services Private Limited has subsequently merged with the M/s. Accenture Solutions Private Limited.
ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (SUCCESSOR OF ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.) VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22979 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83153&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section is required to be read into the section and treated as retrospective in operation.
A.Y. Garments International Private Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22978 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
Sec.281B is to be used only in rare situations where the bona fide of the assessee was in question or there had been a clear case of evasion of tax.
ABUL KALAM Vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22977 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 281B
-
IBM India is eligible eligible to claim Sec 10AA deduction on incremental income arising pursuant to APA.
IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22976 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10AA
-
As per the Agreements, the assessee is given a right to canvas the advertisement for entire advertisement space and become sole selling agent of BCCL and the payment made by the assessee to the sole selling agent is one made by agent to newspaper company and as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2016, no tax need to be deducted on payment.
Metropolitan Media Company Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22975 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 194C
-
It would be appropriate and just to estimate the expenditure, taking cue from Sec.44ADA.
Amitabh Verma Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22974 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 44ADA
-
Revenue by assessing the LTCG in the hands of the assessee had sought to tax a hypothetical income, which finds its roots in a transaction which had never fructified into a sale transaction.
Futura Polyster Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22973 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The set apart amount u/s. 11(1) of the Act, should be calculated on gross revenue income and not on net income after expenses.
Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22972 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 11(1)
-
Upward revaluation of long-term investments is not permitted under AS-13.
Hespera Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22971 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Queries were raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings about the mismatch of the TDS credit claimed by the assessee viz a viz the TDS credit reported in the form 26AS. Similarly, the query was raised regarding the contracts which were completed in the year under consideration.
M/S. PHOENIX PROJECT PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (2), JAMNAGAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22970 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84137&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A fatal mistake cannot be cured u/s 292B and therefore, for this reason alone, notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings should be quashed. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated to assess the escaped income of ₹ 2,89,000/- on account of unexplained investments. No addition has been made by the Assessing Officer towards any unexplained investment. Therefore, the very reason for which re-assessment proceedings were initiated were found satisfactorily explained and no addition has been made, than in such a scenario, any other addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance of the cost of construction cannot be sustained.
SMT. KALA MANISH DHAMEJA VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22969 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84138&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear that after the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), Ajmer the assessee never appeared and attended the proceedings and consequently the appeal of the assessee was decided by impugned ex-parte order. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal that the assessee has not received the impugned order and came to know about the same only when the order passed /s 271(1)(c) dated 12.03.2020 was served upon the assessee at the new address through the process server of the Department.
MUNKA DALL AND OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-4 (2) , JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22968 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84139&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the assessee has sold a residential house on 29.11.2007 and the same is thus not under dispute. Secondly, the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India. In the instant case, the assessee has purchased a plot of land situated at Plot No. 184, Maruti Nagar, Airport Road, Sanganer, Jaipur on 5.11.2007 and thereafter, has carried out construction of a residential house thereon, which as per valuation report has been carried out during the year 2007-08.
SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT VERSUS ITO, WARD-7 (2) , OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22967 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84140&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.