-
AO had nowhere abandoned reasons which were the foundation for issuance of the notice for re-opening. He had considered the objections of the petitioner and disposed them of on the basis of material on record. The sole ground of the petitioner therefore, must fail. In the present case, notice for re-opening having been issued in the case of assessment which was not framed after scrutiny.
SURANA ENTERPRISES, SURANA JEWELERS VERSUS ITO, WARD-47 (3) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22570 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83415&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There subsists an order dated March 20, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the revenue authorities not to initiate any recovery proceedings during the subsistence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interest of justice would be subserved by directing the banks of the petitioners to allow the petitioners to operate the bank accounts, subject to setting aside Rs.5 lakhs in a separate FD account against the demand of the first petitioner.
Narayan Chandra Sarkar. Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22569 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The activities of LO are in the nature of preparatory or auxiliary character in terms of Article 5(3)(e).
Union of India & Anr. Vs U.A.E. Exchange Centre
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22568 (SC)
-
The factual basis on which the Officer formed his opinion in the assessment order in regard to addition of Rs.2,26,000/ stands dispelled by the affidavits and statements of the concerned unregistered dealers in penalty proceedings. In such situation, the addition of amount of Rs.2,26,000/- cannot be justified, much less, maintained.
Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22567 (SC) · Section 68
-
Section 43B is a mix bag and new and dissimilar entries have been inserted therein from time to time to cater to different fiscal scenarios. The broad objective of enacting Section 43B concerning specified deductions referred to therein was to protect larger public interest primarily of revenue including welfare of the employees and Clause (f) fit into that scheme and shared sufficient nexus with the broad objective.
Union of India & Ors. Vs Exide Industries Limited & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22566 (SC) · Section 43B
-
The assessee company was formed to manage business on behalf of the holding company the purported mutual concern in the present case undertakes a commercial venture.
Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22565 (SC)
-
In the present case, the contracting state is France and though under domestic law the assessee has to pay tax in India while deriving income from Indian territory, yet because of Article 8(2) of the DTAA agreement, Air France is exempted to pay any tax in India as its services/activities and profit thereof derives from pool participation.
Air France Vs Addl. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22564 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In the case of a capital asset, if it is transfer under any of the provisions of section 2(47), coupled with handing over of possession of the capital asset, capital gain is to be offered on mercantile basis in the year in which the possession is given. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A) in the case of the assessee, the land has been treated as stock-in-trade and the assessee has only contributed its portion of land to the JDA and is liable to offer business income in the year in which the stock-in-trade is sold. The CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has offered business profits in the AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 i.e. the years in which the Villas have been sold.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2 (4) , HYDERABAD. VERSUS CLEAN CITY ESTATES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22563 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83395&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Kaybee Exim Pte Ltd, which is alleged to be an associated enterprises of the assessee, is not an associated enterprise of the assessee.
KAYBEE PVT LTD VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10 (1) (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22562 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83398&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has paid interest on unsecured loans during the impugned year at an average rate of 10% which is demonstrated from the facts and figures of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon reflected in the financial statements of the assessee which are duly audited. The revenue has been unable to controvert before us.
CHADHA MOTORS, TRANSPORT NAGAR, LUDHIANA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22561 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83400&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has proceeded ahead and basis his own investigation and understanding of the mining process involved, and basis his own calculation and understanding of variables has worked out the quantum of clay which could be extracted from one of the mines owned by the assessee without referring the matter to the domain experts in the field of mining such as geologists and mining engineers.
M/S SHANTA SALES CORPORATION VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6 (1) , JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22560 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83402&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As considered by the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches in the case of M/s. Bartronics India Ltd. v. ACIT that when the assessee has not paid the service tax as required under the provisions of section 43B, which is also very much covered u/s 43B. The provisions of section 43B of the Act is very clear and it states that “any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 (2) , KOCHI VERSUS M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS (P) LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22559 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83403&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the assessment year involved is 2006-07. Rule 8D was introduced with effect from 24/03/2008 which was prospective in operation and cannot be applied retrospectively as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT. Accordingly, we direct the AO to disallow only 2% of expenses incurred towards exempted income. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. High Court observed in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd that sale of old and unyielding trees would not give rise to the exempt income.
ASPINWALL AND COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOCHI. AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22558 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83404&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The taxability arises in the hands of the employees on the date of exercise, hence no TDS would arise at the time of vesting transaction.
NXP India Pvt.Ltd Vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22557 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 192
-
The payment of non-compete fee was capital expenditure in the hands of the assessee, on which the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32 of the Act.
Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt.ltd Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22556 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Given the pandemic situation in the country, it is, all the more necessary for every employer company to take care of its employees as also advised by Ministry of Labour and Employment.
Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22555 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
It is settled position of law that within stipulated time, application has to be made before the concerned authority and again within specified time, the project has to be completed and after completion, the Municipal Authority/local authority has to give a completion certificate only then the deduction u/s.80IB(10) is justified.
Shewale & Sons Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22554 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
On a plain literal interpretation of Sec.54F, it can safely be gathered that the same only contemplates ownership of more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the Original' asset, for rendering the assessee ineligible for claim of deduction under the said statutory provision.
Chandramohan Manohar Potdar Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22553 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54F
-
Following the order passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer's own case for AY 2007-08 we are of the considered view that CIT (A) has rightly deleted the adjustment made by the ld. TPO while determining the ALP and royalty paymen for its Tajola plant as nil because when it is not in dispute that the expenditure or payment of royalty has been paid / incurred for the purpose of business, it cannot be disallowed on the ground that it has failed to generate any economic value for the taxpayer's business.
DCIT, CIRCLE 2 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. ASAHI INDIA GLASS LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22552 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83372&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Expenditure involved in conduct of the camps and distribution of medicines, food and cloth forms and an integral part of conducting of field camps by the assessee trust in imparting the education. They are directly and also integrally connected with the type of education imparted by the assessee trust. We are unable to accept with the finding of the ld. CIT (A).
M/S UMALOCK CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22551 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83373&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.