-
In this case, the unnamed Chartered Accountant had purportedly advised the petitioner to delay in filing returns. He could also have not signed the report of audit in the prescribed form. It is perhaps the report of the Chartered Accountant who finalized the account for the petitioner later was made available for the assessment and the return was filed belatedly.
M/S. IG3 INFRA LIMITED, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CHENNAI, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22630 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82946&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the estimation of Income Tax is essentially a fact finding exercise, which becomes final at the hands of the final fact finding authority of Income Tax namely, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and we would not have entertained this appeal which lies under section 260A of the Act, only on the 'substantial question of law' arising from the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. S. ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22629 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82948&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association which uses the expression “primarily for the benefit of Catholics”. Others may be admitted without distinction of caste and creed” has been thoroughly examined by the Department several time and only on the satisfaction, the Tribunal granted exemption under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act to the Assessee. No explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the appellants – Revenue as to why the exemption was granted to the respondent - Society for the previous years from 1963 till the year 2009.
THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME – TAX EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU. VERSUS C.B.C.I. SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22628 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82945&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act does not preclude the assessee from filing a revised return of income. More so, when assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was also passed in the present case of the assessee, thus the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act loses its importance. And we find in this case the assessee has rightly filed the revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act within the stipulated time frame as per statute.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-13 (2) , KOLKATA. VERSUS M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22627 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83475&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
None of the conditions is fulfilled in favour of the Revenue for imposing penalty. As it appears on record that at the very onset of filing of return the assessee explained the reasons for not including the amount in question being 3.79 crores received as “arbitration award” in its taxable income by annexing Note 7 relying upon the content of the India-Netherlands Treaty. Such Explanation has not been found to be false by the authorities below neither there is any finding to that effect as on record. Even assuming the assessee fails to substantiate the explanation, he has been able to demonstrate that the explanation is bona fide.
VAN OORD DREDGING AND MARINE CONT RACTORS BV VERSUS ASST DIT (IT) 2 (2) NOW TRANSFERRED TO DCIT (IT) 4 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22626 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83478&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is State under Article 289 of the constitution of India, and is entitled to immunity from taxation under the Income Tax Act 1961.
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER 23 (2) (2) MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22625 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83479&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in own case Revenue received by the assessee from offshore supply of goods to ONGC could not be taxed in India. We thus finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration uphold the same to the said extent. If the service provider does not make available the technical knowledge, experience, skill know how or process etc., then the consideration received for rendering of such services cannot be characterised as royalty for the purpose of Article XII(3)(g) of India-Australia DTAA.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -2 (1) (1) MUMBAI VERSUS CAMERON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD. C/O PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22624 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83480&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As per Section 144C of the Act, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to pass draft Assessment Order. But instead of that, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.10.2019 merely captioned the final Assessment Order as Draft Assessment Order along with issuance of notices under Section 156 and 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which means a final Assessment order u/s 144C was passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 144C.
NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE-3 (1) GURGAON, HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22623 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83481&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Due to the prevailing situation of the pandemic COVID-19 and Resolution of the Bar Counsel of West Bengal directing the lawyers not to appear in any judicial proceedings, none of the Counsel are present to assist the Court.
SANJAY JHUNJHUNWALA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22622 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The AO while considering the stay application has to act as a quasi-judicial authority, which means that he has to apply his mind to all relevant factors and thereafter, take a decision which is just, fair and reasonable.
Mansukhlal Amritlal Modi Vs The Income Tax Officer Ward
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22621 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Deductions u/s. 10A/10B have to be made while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI.
M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22620 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10B
-
Keeping in mind the fact that petitioner was the main person controlling/ directing affairs of the group within and outside India and there is large scale tax evasion and investigation is still in progress and there is a strong apprehension that petitioner may not return and, thus, will not be available for investigation, he cannot be granted permission to travel abroad at this stage.
Piyoosh Kumar Goyal Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22619 (HC-DELHI)
-
No appeal to be time barred in the wake of Coronavirus shutdown of.
IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22618 (SC)
-
If the service utilized by the petitioner abroad was for preexisting business in Indonesia, the petitioner could have legitimately taken benefit of exception carved in Sec. 9(1)(vii)(b).
Shriram Capital Limited Vs The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22617 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There is no provision for levying capital gains on consideration received by the partner for reduction in the share in the partnership firm.
Anik Industries Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22616 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee's case falls under 55(2)(b) of the Act, wherein assessee is entitled to substitute the actual cost of acquisition with fair market value as on 01/04/1981.
Piramal Enterprises Limited Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22615 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 55(2)(b)
-
Raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, the same cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income just because the AO did not accept the interpretation, such an interpretation is not rendered incorrect.
Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV Vs Asst DIT (IT)2(2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22614 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
The right to file a revised return of income does not lapse with the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a completion of assessment
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22613 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 143(1)
-
CIT(A) has taken care of the TDS issue and the assessee has not preferred to challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) which crystallizes. Therefore, the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO to disallow the TDS credit claimed in respect of the retention money not shown as income by the assessee in the revised return and to allow it in the year in which the assessee declares retention money as its income takes care of the TDS credit even if erroneously claimed by the assessee in respect of the retention money.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. EMC LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22612 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83451&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom companies are not covered under fees for technical services and out of the purview of TDS provision of 194J.
THE DY. CIT (TDS) -2 (3) MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. VODAFONE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22611 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83461&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.