-
The activity of the assessee commenced upon the acquisition of the shares of the company. Thus, the expenses incurred by the assessee as specified under the provisions of section 35D of the Act, before the commencement of the business are eligible for deduction.
Addlife Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22769 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 35D
-
Genuineness of the donation cannot be considered while determining whether the donation is anonymous or not.
Bhartiya Kissan Charitable Club Trust Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22768 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
-
ITAT - Since funds were specifically borrowed for infusion of equity in the associate concerns as such interest on borrowings further advanced to sister-concerns for 'equity infusion' in group companies not allowable as a deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii).
Abhinav International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22767 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
CIT (A) has correctly accepted and found it correct regarding the amounts received as gifts from husband and from her father-in-law. CIT (A) confirmed the remaining amount owing to non-substantiation of the amounts received.
SUNITA RANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SONIPAT, HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22766 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83763&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find merit in the claim of the assessee that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its above claim considering the undisputed fact that all the documents were lost by the assessee in a major fire and procuring evidence to substantiate its claim therefore was a very difficult process.
M/S RECORDERS AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS PVT. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 2 (1), CHANDIGARH.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22765 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83766&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As carefully gone through the entire events and the verbatim of the letters. We also tried to dwell whether the intention of the AO is to extend the period or conveying the approval of the CIT. While it may be an administrative phenomenon to intimate, inform the CIT about the fact of the special audit party appointed seeking extension, but statutorily that power is vested with the AO.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI VERSUS SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22764 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83767&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Remains and which having been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is the law of the land and has to be followed by all lower authorities. The interest received by the assessee during the impugned year on the compulsory acquisition of its land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is in the nature of compensation and not interest which is taxable under the head income from other sources u/s 56 of the Act as held by the authorities below. The compensation being exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act is not disputed.
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI (HUF) VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-50 (5) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22763 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee received the order on 19.04.2014 for the A.Y. 2014-15 and has filed rectification petition with the CPC-TDS for correction of statements which is not disputed, and the same was processed and order under Section 154 of the Act was passed by CPC TDS on 13.03.2019. Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee has filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Act with the CIT (Appeals).Considering the provisions of law and the facts of the case, we found the assessee has challenged the order under Section 154 of the Act, which is permissible under the Law.
SHRI SRINIVASAMURTHY KOLIHALLY YALAKAIAH VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC – TDS, GHAZIABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22762 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83771&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the assessee had made such an estimate, the assessee's obligation u/s 192 was properly discharged and hence, proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) have to be quashed.
Central Silk Board Vs The Income-Tax Officer (TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22761 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 201(1)/(1A)
-
ITAT - The investments made in partnership firms were also required to be considered for comparing the value of investments with the available own funds - Since investment in 'partnership firms & shares' higher than assessee's 'own funds', hence addition u/s. 14A confirmed.
Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22760 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 14A
-
As we revert back to the reasons furnished by Respondent No. 2 for re-opening of assessment u/s 147 after referring to the information received following search and seizure action carried out in the premises of Shri Naresh Jain, it was stated that information showed that Petitioner had traded in the shares of M/s. Scan Steels Ltd., and was in receipt of ₹ 23,98,014.00 and therefore, Respondent No. 2 concluded that he had reasons to believe that this amount had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
GATEWAY LEASING PVT. LTD., VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, MUMBAI, UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22759 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83033&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No doubt that in the instant case vide Ext.P3 stay application, petitioner has been directed to pay 25% of the total amount on or before 15.03.2020 and the balance amount has been stayed for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The order in writ appeal cannot be said to be in knowledge or notice of CIT Appeal/the assessing officer while exercising power under Section 226(3). But despite that such types of orders are passed imposing a condition of payment of 20% or 25%. Be that as it may.
EUROTECH MARKETING VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22758 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83034&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Payment of commission was a normal trade practice in the line of business, and every business man pays commission to procure business.
SEAHORSE PHARMA P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-2 (1) (3) VADODARA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22757 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue could not establish beyond doubt that the assessee was having substantial interest in CCNPL on the date of advancement of loan by CCNPL to JCTPL. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(A) has specifically observed that as per the annual return filed with the Registrar of Companies, which is a legal and valid document as per law, the assessee was holder of only one share in CCPNL and the other shares stood transferred to the JCTPL.
THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA VERSUS SHRI GURDEEP SINGH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22756 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83749&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Purchaser of the property filed a letter before the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, would not be sufficient to conclude that the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty by the registering authorities had been disputed in an appeal revision before an authority as contemplated under Sec.50C(2)(b) of the Act. Apart from the above the AO made reference to the DVO before conclusion of the Assessment proceedings i.e., before 28.12.2018 on which date he passed the order of assessment.
MS. BENEDICTA MARY MENDONCE VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (3) (3) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22755 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83751&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Perusal of the order sheet does not indicate that the AO has taken the approval of the Pr. CIT/CIT for expanding the assessment from Limited Scrutiny to Complete Scrutiny. DR fairly conceded this fact after perusal of the order sheet that no approval in writing was taken by the AO for expanding the scope of assessment so as to make the addition u/s. 68 of the Act.
SHRI PRABIR DAS, KARIMGANJ VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-KARIMGANJ
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22754 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83756&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order of the ITAT does not suffer from any error or infirmity to warrant interference and no substantial question of law arises.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14 Vs Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22753 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
The question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the show-cause notice, would be a jurisdictional issue and can be raised before the High Court for the first time, even if not raised before the Tribunal.
Ventura Textiles Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Mumbai City-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22752 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
After the judgment of this Court in AICFL, the very basis for re-opening the assessment no longer survived.
Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (InternationalTaxation)-1(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22751 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Simply because there is difference in the claim of assessee in respect of TDS credit and the corresponding income, the AO has made the addition which cannot be accepted when the Form 26AS gives a different picture.
Smt. Nirmali Bhadra Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22750 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.