-
Revenue Authorities could not bring any other corroborative evidences to substantiate the said noting in the loose paper. The entire addition has been based on this single noting found in this loose paper without any corroborative evidences. Even at the time of hearing, the Ld. DR could not place on record any relevant document, evidences in order to substantiate and corroborate the addition made on the basis of that entry in the loose paper.
RAJKUMAR B. AGARWAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) , PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22470 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83193&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) considered the past savings but did not appreciate the explanation of the assessee that he was working in the Government Health Department since 02.9.1997 as an Assistant Surgeon and the credits are from the rotational fund. Credit entries regarding the cancellation of DD purchased for share trading, clearing of cheque no.143176 and IDBI Infrastructure Bonds purchased by the assessee in earlier years have not been considered by the CIT(A), which is not justified because the assessee has explained the nature of credit entries.
SMT. KUSUM BHARGAV L/H OF DR. PRAHLAD BHARGAV, UJJAIN VERSUS ITO-2 (1) , UJJAIN
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22469 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83194&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Authorities have considered from the material placed before it that the agent is working mainly or wholly on behalf of the non-resident on the ground that more than 50% of the commission receipt is received from the non-resident. CIT(A) has also observed that an agent is regarded as economically dependent on the principal if it derives major revenue from principal or if he services the principal and bear entrepreneurial or business risk.
RSV GLOBAL VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TP) , BHOPAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22468 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83195&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not doubted the books of accounts of the appellant. AO has held that there is nothing on record to say that assessee was adopting any uniform policy in respect of discount and it was being given in the uniform way to the customers. The amount on account of discounts and rebates has been disallowed. CIT(Appeals) has held that the burden of proof lies on the assessee in order to claim that the expenditure falls under Section 37(1).
M/S. TRISTAR MOTORS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 (1) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22467 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82899&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From perusal of Section 10A of the Act, it is evident that the intention of the legislature is to encourage establishment of export oriented industries with the object of receiving convertible foreign exchange. In order to claim deduction under Section 10A of the Act, the conditions laid down under Section 10A(2) have to be complied with.
M/S. GRANITE MART LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-11 (2) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22466 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82900&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Agriculture income certificate issued by the revenue department of the State of Telangana has been got issued in favour of the assessee by applying online and the format in which it is issued is as per the concerned state’s prescribed rules and regulations.
ANIL KUMAR NUWAL VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE- BHILWARA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22465 (ITAT-JODHPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83185&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Land was purchased by the assessee since long back as capita asset and was continuously hold by it for 20 years in case of Fateh Royal Residency and for 4-5 years in case of Fateh Hills as capital asset. There was no intention of assessee to trade for the land so purchased, contrary it was used for agricultural purposes continuously till the year of sale.
RAMESH RAJ BOHRA VERSUS D.C.I.T., BARMER CIRCLE-BARMER.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22464 (ITAT-JODHPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83186&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee/s own case, we direct the ld AO to grant depreciation on this asset @60%. CIT (A) is correct that the ld AO has failed to record satisfaction about the correctness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure to earn the exempt income. It is also true that the assessee has not received any exempt income during the year.
ACIT, CIRCLE-20 (2) , NEW DELHI VERSUS QUIPPO OIL & GAS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22463 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83187&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee u/s. 36(1)(viii) with regard to providing long term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India and the same is confirmed. Thus, this ground of appeals of both the assessee as well as the Revenue are dismissed.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1) THRISSUR. VERSUS M/S. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22462 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83168&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Capital grant is utilized for purchase of buses and other fixed assets for which it has been granted, the same would be in nature of capital grant and not chargeable to tax. Where the capital grant is utilised for meeting the operational expenditure of the assessee company, the AO is well within his right and jurisdiction to examine the taxability thereof as to why the same should not be treated as revenue receipt and brought to tax.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-06, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S JAIPUR CITY TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22461 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83169&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing Total taxable income. Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments, the same would already stand excluded while computing, Income under the head, Income form Business and Profession. The effect of such disallowance would lead to increase in Business income.
FIRST AMERICAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 (1) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22460 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83178&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where any assessee had not carried on any business activity, it cannot be presumed to have earned any income. Assessee has not carried on any business activity and earned any income. In such circumstances, it could only have received capital contribution from the partners.
JAYASHREE ANAND ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 11 (3) , HYDERABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22459 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83179&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notices issued by the A.O. and replies thereto furnished by the assessee reveal that all the queries raised by the A.O. including about the source of deposits were duly answered by the assessee supported with the documentary evidence. PCIT was of the view that the A.O. had not made the requisite enquiries.
SHRI VARINDER KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS THE ITO, WARD -5, PATIALA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22458 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83180&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding of the Tribunal that the amount received by the assessee from his purchaser cannot be termed as interest because there is no finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax as to the rate of interest, is a finding of fact. Also the value of the said item is far less than the value for which the appeals can be filed before this Court by the Department.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD VERSUS SRI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA MULPURI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22457 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82897&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Property is admittedly mortgaged with Catholic Syrian Bank. It is also not in dispute that one of the assessee Smt. Muragasamy Lalitha was suffering from Kidney failure. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the property could not be sold for the market rate may have some justification.
SMT. MURUGASAMY LALITHA, G. GUNASEKARAN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) , TIRUPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22456 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, what was received by the assessee was only share of income from the society. The income of the society was taxed separately in the hands of the society. CIT(A) also has given a finding that the income should be taxed in the hands of the society only but not in the hands of individual members.
MARNI PRASUNA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 KAKINADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22455 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83131&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though he Ld. A.R. contends that the parent company has refused to reimburse the payments made to the employees, yet no document was produced before tax authorities or before us in support of the said claim. Hence, in our view, the assessee has failed to substantiate as to why the advances amount was written off, particularly under the fact that the same is recoverable from its parent company. We also notice from the assessment order that the parent company has not reimbursed the amount only on account of change of policy of the parent company.
TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (ERSTWHILE TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-7 (1) (1) BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22454 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83133&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A bare perusal of the response filed on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to the notice u/s 142(1) calling upon the petitioner as to why his income should not be treated as income from business would reveal that no objection worth the name in relation to the jurisdiction was raised. The response was confined only to the question raised and based on that the AO by exhaustively dealing with the material available before him and dealing with the limited issues raised in reply, passed the assessment order.
DINESH BOHRA S/O SOMAN RAJ BOHRA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22453 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82887&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the impugned summons shows that apart from asking the assessee to be present on a particular day, the Assistant Commissioner also directed the assessee not to depart from the premises till he grants permission to do so. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned summons to the extent of asking the assessee to be present for unlimited period till the time he obtains permission from the Assistant Commissioner, is highly unreasonable.
SRI NAVAL KISHORE KHAITAN, VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VISAKHAPATNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22452 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82888&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is apparent that the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act does not specifically disclose the charge against the Assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is sine-quo-non for issuance of show-cause notice and for want of such particulars.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELAGAVI. VERSUS M/S. RYATARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22451 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82890&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.