-
Tribunal noted that the basis of the entire transfer pricing adjustment was the supply of gas turbines to PWD (CWG) by the AE. Relevant clauses of the contract and noted that eligibility condition for participating in tender was submission of registration certificate under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, besides submission of certificate of being original equipment manufacturer of gas turbines. Admittedly, assessee was not a manufacturer of gas turbines but its AE was. However, the AE did not have VAT registration certificate. Therefore, it was not qualified to participate in the tender.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS SOLAR TURBINES INDIA P. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22670 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82971&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether the petitioner was entitled to adjust the loss of the brought forward from the books of accounts of the transferor company was subject matter of discussion before the assessment orders were passed for the respective Assessment Years.
M/S. T. STANES & COMPANY LIMITED, VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE I (2) , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RACE COURSE, COIMBATORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22669 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82973&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the AAR application it came to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed as set off under Section 74 and the claim of carry forward of loss by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 are not losses incurred by the assessee, rather those are losses incurred by Aberdeen Delaware Business Trust Asia Pacific Inc Japan Fund which is a different person being a trust fund or sub-trust.
ABERDEEN ASIA PACIFIC INCLUDING JAPAN EQUITY FUND VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1 (1) (1) , MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22668 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82975&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It has been the consistent stand of the assessee which has been accepted by the First Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Tribunal that the business of the assessee centered around customers / beneficiaries making deposits in cash amounts and in lieu thereof taking cheques from the assessee for amounts slightly lesser than the quantum of deposits, the difference representing the commission realized by the assessee.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 VERSUS ALAG SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAHASAGAR SECURITIES AND RICHMOND SECURITIES PVT. LTD.)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22667 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82976&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The statutory show-cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act proposing to impose penalty was issued on the same day when the assessment order was passed i.e., on 28.02.2006. The said notice was in printed form. Though at the bottom of the notice it was mentioned 'delete inappropriate words and paragraphs', unfortunately, the Assessing Officer omitted to strike off the inapplicable portion in the notice i.e., whether the penalty was sought to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.
VENTURA TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-MUMBAI CITY-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22666 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82977&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147: The reasons in support of the s. 148 notice is the very issue in respect of which the AO had raised a query during the assessment proceedings and the Petitioner had responded justifying its stand. The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order amounts to the AO accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. In these circumstances, the reasons in support of the notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction
ACIT vs. Marico Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22665 (SC) · Section 147
-
The non-inclusive part consists of consideration for the sale distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films. The Assessing Officer misread the provision in the second part of the clause with regard to exhibition of cinematographic films. He wrongly held that what the assessee purchased is copyrights and hence liable to TDS. In fact, the copyrights are always with the producer. The distributor is only given the right exhibition of cinematographic films.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-34 (3) VERSUS YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI AND SH. YASHOVARDHAN TYAGI VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-19 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22664 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83576&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee society has been granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act by the department and, therefore, it remains undisputed that the department had found the activities of the assessee society genuine and, therefore, the genuineness of the activities cannot be doubted within a short span of six months.
M/S. PRADEEP EDUCATION SOCIETY VILL VERSUS CIT (EXEMPTIONS) C.R. BUILDING
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22663 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83575&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The AO had considered the de-merger to be complete and effective, then he could not adopt a contrary stand in respect of corresponding expenses and deny the deduction claimed u/s 35DD of the Act alleging the demerger to be incomplete. It is further noted that the initial year of claim of deduction u/s 35DD of the Act was AY 2010-11.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-8 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. ASIAN HOTELS EAST LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22662 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From perusal of the order passed by the assessing officer, it is evident that assessing officer has not examined the fact whether or not the assessee has entered an amount as written off as bad debt. From the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also it is evident that he has not recorded a specific finding that the assessee had written off the debt in the books of account.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-19 NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. ABB LTD. (SUCCESSOR OF ABB INSTRUMENTATION LTD.)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22661 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82967&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Available information in the return is already on record with the assessing officer. Such a situation, it is possible that AO may on looking at the notice itself find it necessary to issue the notice u/s 143(2) of the act. Thus imputing waiting time to the AO for issue of notice u/s143 (2) of the act is perhaps not justified. Because, in such cases the AO might have verified the original return of income at the time of issue of notice u/s148 of the act, if he does not find such information in the return, then only he issues notice u/s 148 of the act. Otherwise, why he would issue a notice if the information is available in the original return it.
SHRI HEMANT MITTAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 HISSAR HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22660 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83569&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the AO had any doubt regarding their identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, he could have at least issued any notice either u/s.131 or u/s.133(6) of the Act to any of the employees but merely stating that the assessee could not produce the identity card of the 21 employees and they had no PAN and not filing their income tax returns, cannot be accepted unsecured loan accepted from employees is very nominal and that is treated as a security money kept with the employer and paid back when they left the service-employees' identity cards were produced before the AO and the nominal amount collected from each employees was treated as a security money.
BRIG. NARAYAN NAYAK, PROP: M/S INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-5 (1) , BHUBANESWAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22659 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83571&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a careful perusal of the cash flow statement prepared by the Assessing Officer, except for investments in Multi Commodity Exchange, Cochin Stock Exchange and Household expenses respectively all other amounts considered as application, is directly or indirectly linked to the business of running houseboats. Therefore, the inclusion of the business transaction as unexplained investments / expenditure would go against the provisions of section 44AD.
SM. HONEY RAHULAN C/O. SWATHY H. PRASAD ADVOCATES VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 ALAPPUZHA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22658 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83572&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Trust Deed of the assessee clearly explained that at the time of winding up what procedure has to be followed of the corpus fund and other funds including movable and immovable property.
SUVIPRA SHIKSHA SANSTHAN VERSUS ITO EXEMPTION WARD GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22657 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83573&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has a regular trading account of M/s Sona Trading Company to which regular sales are made and payments received through banking channel. The revenue authorities have not raised any question on the genuineness of the transactions. We, therefore, find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Ground no.1 of the revenue's appeal is dismissed.
INCOME TAX OFFICER-2, RATLAM VERSUS SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22656 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83555&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the assessee has overvalued its closing stock of the earlier assessment year which suggests that amount of profit was increased by that amount or the loss was decreased by the same amount of that assessment year. As such the effect of the closing stock of the earlier assessment year has already been given effect in that particular year which cannot be challenged in the year under consideration. The assessee before the CIT (A) has contended that it has valued its closing stock at the market rate being lower than the cost as per the Accounting Standard 2 notified under the Companies Act, 1956.
M/S. SHYAM COTSYN INDIA LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 (1) (3) , AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22655 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83557&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the assessee is a farmer and a senior citizen, the claim of deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied without verification of the fact of utilization of the sale consideration for construction of the house. Since it is a case of non-filing of return of income and the A.O. has issued notice u/s 148 for assessing the capital gain in the hands of the assessee, therefore, there is no bar in claiming the deduction u/s 54F of the Act against the capital gain proposed to be taxed by the A.O. in the proceedings U/s 147 of the Act.
SHRI PYARE LAL SAINI VERSUS I.T.O., WARD-BHIWADI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22654 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83558&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
None of the authority below has brought out anything on record on the aspects as discussed above but arrived at the conclusion that the assessee has been carrying on business of property development on the basis that the assessee has been incurring the expenditure on continuous basis for the development of the land. The contention as raised by the assessee before the authorities below that it wanted to development the impugned land for its business activities has not been challenged.
M/S ANIL DYE CHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS A.C.I.T. (OSD) RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22653 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83562&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The basis of the above reason was a report of survey and the details of the transaction carried out by the assessee. The report shows that it is not a genuine error because of the reason that it is not wrong punching of one or two keys but, code has been replaced. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a genuine loss. There is no assessment of income of the assessee u/s 143 (3) prior to issue of notice u/s 148 of the act. He perused the above information with the return of income filed by the assessee.
ARUNACHAL PROPERTIES PVT LTD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (2) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22652 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83563&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the assessee had invested the long term capital gains in purchase of land towards construction of house but could not complete the construction before the expiry of 3 years as to pretend under law in the case of Sri Prasad Nimmagadda held that on examination of section 54 and 54F it is found that the provisions contained in section 54 including the proviso are pari materia with section 54F.
DEEPAK BHARDWAJ VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3) , NOIDA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22651 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83564&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.