-
All the AEs did not constitute a PE in India and hence, the payments were not taxable in India.
M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22926 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
There is no reference whatsoever to the incriminating material found during the course of search upon the assessee on the basis of which this addition of unsecured loan has been done in the hands of the assessee under section 153A.
MR. RAJESH PODDAR VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (4) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22925 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84080&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mandate of law, even where a concluded assessment is sought to be reopened by the A.O within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is must that the A.O has fresh material or information with him, that had led to the formation of belief on his part that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments in the case of NYK Lime (India) Ltd.and Purity Tech Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Anr.
M/S MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 (2) (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22924 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84082&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal concluded that the artificial definition made by Lower Authorities with reference to gift and settlement was not appropriate. The Tribunal was of the opinion that for the purpose of Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act, there was no difference between gift and settlement and that in the instant case, the settlement made with the assessee's brother could not attract capital gains on this count. There are no reasons as to how the Tribunal came to such a conclusion.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHENNAI VERSUS SHRI. S. YOGARATHNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22923 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83107&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Substantial questions of law framed for consideration in this appeal were answered against the Revenue in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company as amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from the Assessment Year 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. ARCHEAN GRANITES PRIVATE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22922 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83108&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the audit objection may serve as information, the basis of which the Income Tax Officer can act, the ultimate action must depend directly and solely on the formation of belief by the Income Tax Officer on his own, where such information passed on to him by the audit that income has escaped assessment.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. FARIDA PRIME TANNERY PVT LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22921 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83109&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is expected to file his return of income along with his books and documents. It is for the Assessing Officer to consider the same in accordance with law and complete the assessment. The assessee is not there to advice the Assessing Officer as to how he should go about in assessing the income of the assessee, as it is the statutory duty of the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the Sale Deed dated 02.05.2008, is only the document, which is the subject matter of the assessment. This document was very much available with the Assessing Officer when he completed the assessment under Section 143(3), dated 05.12.2011.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 COIMBATORE. VERSUS SHRI. K.R. JAYARAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22920 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83111&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no colourable device involved in having two separate agreements for two entirely separate and distinct purposes.
SHIV RAJ GUPTA Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22919 (SC)
-
The Mumbai PO would fall within clause (e) of Article 5(4) of the DTAA, inasmuch as PO was solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the assessee and ONGC.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Vs M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22918 (SC)
-
Already having invoked powers u/s.245, Revenue cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount on the ground that the respondents may have a future demand against the petitioner arising out of the pending assessment orders.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Vs VODAFONE IDEA LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22917 (SC)
-
When database access by itself does not result in taxation as royalty, such database access being coupled with software licence cannot bring the software consideration within the scope of royalty.
Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22916 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 28(v-a): There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till AY 2003-2004. It is only w.e.f. 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable u/s 28(v-a). It is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively (All imp judgements referred)
Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22915 (SC) · Section S. 28(v-a)
-
A reading of the Board Resolution would show that the Project Office was established to coordinate and execute delivery documents in connection with construction of offshore platform modification of existing facilities for ONGC. Unfortunately, the ITAT relied upon only the first paragraph of the Board Resolution, and then jumped to the conclusion that the Mumbai office was for coordination and execution of the project itself. The finding, therefore, that the Mumbai office was not a mere liaison office, but was involved in the core activity of execution of the project itself is therefore clearly perverse.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI & ANR. VERSUS M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22914 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83106&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Use of the building is incidental to the main object of leasing of workstation by the assessee. As noted from the brief facts of the case that the assessee has given ground and first floor of the building on the rent to another party separately and income from which has been offered by the assessee under the head income from the house property and which has not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer.
M/S. TELEKON MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-25 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22913 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84074&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clearly, without any recorded reasons and without framing any substantial question of law on whether the said amount could be taxed under any other provision of the Income Tax Act, the High Court went ahead and held that the amount of INR 6.6 crores received by the assessee was received as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares – and not for handing over management and control of CDBL and is consequently not taxable under Section 28(ii)(a).
SHIV RAJ GUPTA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-IV
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22912 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83105&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The list of QIBs to whom shares are issued, the shares are not issued to any of the aforesaid category. Thus QIBs, not being promoters, promoter group, subsidiaries and associates of the company would qualify as public.
Yes Bank Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22911 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Wrong mention of section would not vitiate the entire assessment. Moreover, the first appellate authority, at para 4.3 of his order, has also acknowledged this inadvertent error. No merit in this application moved by the assessee. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.
THE A.C.I.T CIRCLE 14 (2) NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S KMG ROLLING PVT LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22910 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84065&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) have taken a wrong view by holding that the assessee cannot grow tax-free income u/ss 10(34) and 10(35) of the Acts unless additional tax has been paid as per the provisions of Sections 115-0 and 115-R of the Act and as such the exemption claimed u/ss 10(34) and 10(35) is to be allowed only if the dividend income distributed as per the provisions of Sections 115-O and 115-R whereas, the conditions laid down u/s 115-O to avail the exemption u/s 10(34), is to be complied with at the level of venture capital undertaking and not at the stage when the investor, the assessee in this case, received the dividend income from VCF.
M/S JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AGENCY [JBIC] VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE 3 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22909 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84066&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled principle that the AO is required to make reasonable, sufficient and adequate enquiry of impugned issues during assessment proceedings and in case of no enquiry or insufficient or inadequate enquiry, Pr.CIT is empowered to revise the order holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. But if this proposition is evaluated in the facts and circumstances of the present case then, it is clearly discernible that the AO by way of notice u/s.142(1) dated 26.10.2015 and 30.7.2015 called the documents/information from the assessee which includes copy of the audited balance sheet, profit and loss account.
SUREKHA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. VERSUS PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22908 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84067&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The essence of the matter is to examine as to whether a particular expenditure/loss is deductible and not whether the same is recorded in the books of account. If a particular amount is deductible as per law, the same has to be allowed as deduction irrespective of the fact that it was not recorded in the books of account. It is further noticed that the assessee did not record such diminution of value of securities to the extent of ₹ 2.65 crores in its books of account so as to satisfy the RBI norms, which provide for valuing the securities as such without any diminution in their value at the year end.
M/S. VISHWAS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22907 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84068&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.