-
Assessment order did not record any satisfaction as to for which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act the penalty proceedings have been initiated. The A.O. merely mentioned at the bottom of the assessment order after computing the income that “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately.” Thus there is a violation of the Law in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any justification to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act against the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.
SHRI RAJ KUMAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-62 (2), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22690 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83645&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the trading liability or the expenditure or deduction was claimed by the assessee in respect of interest paid on the OCC loan. In respect of principal amount, though the assessee has gained the benefit by way of one time settlement the same cannot be brought to tax u/s 41(1) because the OCC loan represents the principal which was never claimed as expenditure. AO also did not make out a case that the principal amount was debited to the Profit & Loss account in the earlier years.
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 SRIKAKULAM VERSUS M/S SRI VASAVI POLYMERS P. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22689 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83648&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case apparently, AE has not provided any capital to the appellant on which income is earned. It is a corporate guarantee, being a surety to the lender bank of the appellant that, if in a case, in future, the appellant fails to pay the due amount owed to those lenders, the Netherland Company will pay to those lenders. Thus, there was promise to reimburse the amount to those lenders on happening of an event i.e. failure of payments by the appellant of the dues owed to the lenders and lenders invoking the guarantee issued by the Netherlands company in favour of those lenders.
LEASE PLAN INDIA PVT. LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-4 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22688 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83653&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the said case where the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of ESOP in profit and loss account was deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD, VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-13 (1), NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22687 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83656&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Genuineness of the trade payables or creditors has to be examined in the year in which they originate and that unless the liability becomes unenforceable or is written off by the assessee or is given up by the other party or something is brought on record that there is cessation of liability, the same cannot be brought to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act.
M/S. NAMA PROPERTIES LTD HYDERABAD VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22686 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83635&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of investment. Accordingly presumption can be drawn that the borrowed fund was not utilised for such investments. Accordingly there cannot be any disallowance of any interest expenses in view of PCIT v. Shreno Ltd. held that if the assessee can demonstrate availability of surplus interest free funds for making investment generating tax free income, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act would not be justified.
GUJARAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. VERSUS ACIT GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22685 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83638&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the reopening of assessment was made on the belief that rental income had escaped assessment. Whereas the rental income does not belong to the assessee and belonged to the HUF of the assessee. Though the PAN number of the assessee is mentioned in the 26AS, the assessee has not claimed the TDS in the return. These issues clearly show that the AO reopened the assessment without proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law, accordingly we quash the notice issued u/s 148.
KILARI VENKATA ROSAIAH VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 (1) GUNTUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22684 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83641&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) would further show that he has nowhere confirmed the protective addition on the ground that the said amount was paid by the assessee. Rather, the Ld. CIT (A) has clearly mentioned that the impugned amount related to the company and the protective addition was solely u/s 179 of the Act in the sole event of liability being fastened upon the company and its subsequent non recovery from the company.
SH. BINU NANU VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22683 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83642&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO in this case had received the only information that the assessee had received a high premium along with share application money. However, this information alone, in our view, does not constitute any tangible material or to say any incriminating material to form a belief by the Assessing Officer that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment or to say in other words that the share application money received by the assessee was an unaccounted money of the assessee.
M/S INDO GLOBAL TECHNO TRADE LIMITED VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-1 (5) , LUDHIANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22682 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83644&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Asessee has offered a sum of ₹ 50 Lakhs on 15.03.2007 towards the advance tax payable for the Assessment year 2007-08. It is also pertinent to mention here that prior to seizure of the cash, the assessee had paid advance tax in four installments on 15.06.2006, 14.09.2006, 14.12.2006 and 08.03.2007, which is evident from statement of total income. Department did not adjust the aforesaid amount even though the cash was available with the department.
M/S. MARBLE CENTRE INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (2) , BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22681 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82995&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 143(3)/ 292BB: Under CBDT Instruction No.5/2016, a case earmarked for 'Limited Scrutiny' cannot be taken for 'Complete Scrutiny' unless the AO forms a "reasonable view" that there is a possibility of under assessment of income. The objective of the instruction is to (i) prevent fishing and roving enquiries; (ii) ensure maximum objectivity; and (iii) enforce checks and balances upon the powers of the AO. On facts, there is not an iota of cogent material shown by the AO for the conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. The PCIT has also accorded approval in a mechanical manner. S. 292BB does not save the infirmity. The assessment order has to be quashed as a nullity
Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Addl CIT
(2020) TaxCorp (A.T.) 83612 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83612&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The objects of the assessee are very clear that the assessee is running various homes for different purposes to run such huge activity various buildings are required, therefore the assessee continuously carrying the construction activity according to the objects of the society, therefore the Assessing Officer without examining the issue and without considering the details filed, simply disallowed the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee is not correct. The assessee started the construction activity in earlier years i.e. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 all the years the AO has allowed the expenditure incurred by the assessee.
DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) , EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. VERSUS M/S. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22679 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83626&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has demonstrated the availability of sufficient own funds for the purpose of making investment of own funds available as against total investment we hold that the said facts and circumstances of the assessee warrant no disallowance of interest in the present case, following the decision of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12. Similarly in the case of administrative expenses we have noted that almost entire amount of dividend income has been earned from subsidiary company of the assessee in which investment was made in the preceding years only.
VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED VERSUS THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, THE D.C.I.T, J.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22678 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83627&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO called for the details with regard to gifts received by the assessee - assessee was asked to furnish the bank account details, books of accounts etc. and also called for some more information and the assessee submitted the confirmation letter from HUF and confirmed the gift to Shri K.Ramachandraiah, individual for a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs. Both Shri K.Ramachandraiah, HUF and Shri K.Ramachandriah, individual are assessed to tax. After duly verifying the information furnished by the assessee, the assessment was completed by an order u/s 143(3) dated 23.05.2011, thus the source of credit was explained by the assessee in the original assessment.
ITO, WARD-5 (4) VISAKHAPATNAM VERSUS SRI KATEPALLE RAMACHANDRAIAH AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22677 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83629&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even in cases of financial leases, the depreciation allowance contemplated under Section 32(1) of the Act is allowable to the lessor. It has not been shown by the Ld. CIT-DR that any of such precedents in assessee's own case has been altered by any higher authority. Therefore, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we do not find any hesitation in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation on lease of assets where it involves financial lease.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, IDBI BANK LTD VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22676 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83608&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is not an iota of any cogent material mentioned by the Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached the conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. We have also gone through the statement of assessee's Director Mr. Rohit Verma which was recorded on 18.07.2017 i.e., after the conversion of the case and even in his statement nothing adverse is coming out vis. a vis. the impugned transactions.
DEV MILK FOODS PVT. LTD., C/O KAPIL GOEL ADVOCATE VERSUS ADD. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE -3 NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22675 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83612&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It comes out that in a case where the income is not actually received by the assessee and it has not accrued to the assessee, then under no provisions of Income Tax Act, the income tax authorities are authorized to include such income which was neither due nor collected. In the present case also, this is not the case of the AO that higher amount of lease rental was received by the assessee or it has accrued to the assessee and therefore, in our considered opinion, this judgment of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court is squarely applicable in the present case.
M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PVT. LTD., M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 7 (1) (3) , BENGALURU., THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD – 7 (1) (2) , BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22674 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83613&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a case of purchase of residential house property which was purchased on 16.07.2015 as noted by learned CIT(A) and the date of sale / transfer of the capital asset on which the capital gain has arisen is 28.08.2015 / 30.09.2015 and therefore, the purchase of residential house is within the period of one year before the date of transfer and therefore, deduction under section 54F is allowable.
SHRI. BHARTUR RAMASWAMY VIJAYENDRA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 3 (1) (1) , BENGALURU.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22673 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83614&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The true purpose of crediting the value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of those goods entered on the other side of the account so that the cancelling out of the entries relating to the same stock from both sides of the account would leave only the transactions on which there had been actual sales in the course of the year showing the profit or loss actually realised on the year’s trading.
M/S. J.S. & M.F. BUILDERS VERSUS A.K. CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22672 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82991&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the income of the taxpayer falls above the prescribed limit, then he should have to maintain books of accounts u/s.44AA and he should produce the same as and when required by the AO enabling him to calculate correct taxable income of the assessee, which is lack in this case.
SMT. SANGHAMITRA PATTNAIK VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARIPADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22671 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83586&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.