-
A.O. has incorporated the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act relating to assessment year 2014-15 and has applied the same to both the years under consideration. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) of section 80JJAA as amended by Finance Act 2016 makes it clear that the provisions that existed before 1st day of April, 2016 shall apply to the earlier years, meaning thereby, the provisions, which are applicable to a particular year, should be applied for determining the eligibility of the assessee to claim this deduction.
CENTURY LINK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) (1) BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22390 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The benefit of change in Law as above by Finance Act, 2014 should be available and for the year under consideration, the benefit of exemption should be available on the date of registration as the assessment of the year was pending because as per chronology of events the assessee had already applied for registration u/s.12A on 03.03.2016 and the assessment order was passed on 15.03.2016.
NAVSARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22389 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82905&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Vide order dated 06- 02-2020, the Tribunal has directed to adopt ₹ 1,032/- as per sq. mtr as fair market value on the date of sale in that case, namely, 08-01-2004 against survey number 187. It, therefore, emerges that the stamp value of ₹ 955/- in this case is still less than the fair market value determined by the Tribunal for similar property in the case of Shri Nitin N. Shewale. Agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition by adopting fair market value as on the date of transfer of land at ₹ 955/- p.s.m., being the stamp value.
SHRI HEMANT SUDAM TUPE VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (3) , PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22388 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82906&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Authorities below should not have asked the purchaser to prove source of the source. The purchaser also in his statement explained the reasons for giving the advance in cash to the assessee because he was not maintaining bank account for the last ten years. The assessee has only the source of income from capital gain and income from other sources being interest. Therefore, the assessee was not doing any business activity during the year under consideration.
SHAILENDRA KUMAR TAMOTIA VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2) , BHUBANESWAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22387 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82908&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has recorded clear satisfaction as required under the law during the course of assessment proceedings, before initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in legal arguments taken by the assessee and accordingly, ground of assesee appeal is rejected.
MUNIR KHAN VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7 (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22386 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82909&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Maintenance charges claimed by the assessee can only be treated as separate source of income and it can be charged as a separate head under income from other sources as claimed by the assessee and if there is any expenditure in connection with the above income, can only be allowed to be claimed by the assessee against the maintenance receipts.
YJ REALITY AND AVIATION PVT LTD. VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22385 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82911&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had made particular application for granting of approval on 14.08.2008. However, the approval was only granted by the Pr. CIT on 06.03.2017. CIT has taken almost 9 years to grant approval, in our view by any stretch of reasoning, the time taken for granting the approval cannot be justified by the Revenue. Lapse/delay on the part of the Pr.CIT for not deciding the approval application of the assessee within a stipulated period of time, cannot be the ground for not allowing the claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(v) to the assessee.
M/S. MAASS FLANGE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14, PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22384 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82912&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of education which qualifies as charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15). There is no reference in the impugned order dated 27.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(E), whatsoever, to any facts and circumstances which can be said to be violative of provision of Section 12A read with Section 12AA. No materials have been brought to our attention from the Revenue’s side either to show how any of the provision under Section 12A read with 12AA are not fulfilled by the assessee.
M/S NAV BHARAT SHIKSHA SAMITI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME–TAX (E) , CHANDIGARH.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22383 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82893&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, admittedly, the assessee inherited the property on the death of her parents. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of indexation cost from the date of acquisition of asset or from 01-04- 1981. The ld CIT(A) while passing the order followed the ratio of decision of Manjula J Shah. No infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result the first issue is decided in favour of assessee.
ITO (IT) -4 (2) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS ANURADHA SHIVPRAKASH SETH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82894&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts of the present case is quite similar to the facts of the case New Shailaja Co-operative Housing Society Ltd wherein also the assessee acquired the land in the year 1972 and constructed the building and subsequently by virtue of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1991 (DCR).
SBI STAFF CHITRALEKHA CHS LTD. VERSUS CIT-40, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22381 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82896&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As assessee’s own funds far exceeded the investments held by the assessee which is evident from the fact that the assessee has year-end share capital and free reserves aggregating to ₹ 17.25 Crores as against investments of ₹ 9.16 Crores held by the assessee. Incremental reserves during the year far exceeds the incremental investments made by the assessee during the year.
M/S. RAMGOPAL TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS DCIT-3 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22380 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82898&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Referring to lease deeds available in the paper book, we find that the assessee has simply let out the properties owned by it for exploitation of his property by an owner and it is not doing any such activity based on which, it can be said that the letting out of the properties was the doing of a business.
M/S MLC PROPERTIES LLP VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 1 (2) (1) , BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22379 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82900&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the assessee alleged that his income is not taxable during the provisions of the Act there cannot be any obligation upon the assessee to pay advance tax.
PARMANAND SHARMA VERSUS ITO WARD- 2 (4) NOIDA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22378 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82901&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the year under consideration, the assessee was not carrying any business activity in terms of the main object of the assessee company. While assessee had borrowed monies from Matrix Logistics Private Limited, it had not claimed any deduction or allowance in respect of the same. The accounting entries cannot be determinative of the nature of receipt and what can be added to income under section 41(1) of the Act is something in respect of which, deduction has been allowed in the past.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22377 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82831&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to reason would indicate that the AO has nowhere quantified the income escaped. Notice has been issued after an expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, but before six years. This notice could be issued within limitation if the AO has made out a case that income exceeded rupees one lakh has escaped assessment. No such finding or observation or reference has been made in the reasons extracted.
SUMER S. SANGHVI C/O. MEHTA LODHA & CO VERSUS ACIT, CIR. 5 AHMEDABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22376 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82850&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
DTAA will prevail over the provisions of sec.206AA of the Act. Therefore, the TDS done as per the DTAA is correct. Similar view has been taken in the case of Danisco India (P)Ltd.vs Union of India. It was the ACIT-CPC-TDS who passed the order u/s.154 of the Act and therefore if the CIT(A) is of the view that the issue was debatable then the order u/s.154 of the Act should have been cancelled by him. He dismissed the appeals of the Assessee without realizing that the order u/s.154 of the Act was passed by the ACIT-CPC-TDS and not on any application filed by the Assessee.
M/S ARVIND LIFESTYLES BRANDS LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UTTAR PRADESH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22375 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82851&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has submitted that this was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Accountant of the assessee which has not been accepted by the authorities below. When in respect of sale of property, matter was referred to DVO to determine sale consideration at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
SHAHEEN M. MUJAWAR PRABHATWADI KURLA PIPELINE VERSUS ITO-26 (3) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22374 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82855&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Act provides that no order u/s 271D of the Act shall be passed after expiry of the financial year, in which the proceedings are completed or six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty, is initiated. The relevant financial year, is 2016-17 in this case and the relevant month of initiation of penalty, is April, 2016.
DR. SANJIV KESHAV KARANDE VERSUS ITO, WARD-11 (1) , PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22373 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82856&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the issue has been decided by the ITAT in earlier year in assessee's favour the disallowance of depreciation by the AO for this year is not sustainable as the same is consequential to the depreciation allowed and WDV of assets in earlier year. Therefore, following the order of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 I wherein held assessee is entitled to depreciation on the enhanced cost at which the assessee has taken over the assets and direct the AO to allow the depreciation as claimed by the assessee.
M/S DHARMANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDL. C.I.T. -5 (1) , MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22372 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82860&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the anomaly, Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel submitted on the basis of the instructions received from respondent No.1 who is present in the Court that there is no demand payable by the firm for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and consequently, question of raising of any demand against the petitioner does not arise. Further, petitioner having retired as partner of the firm with effect from 31.03.2012 raising any demand against the petitioner for assessment year 2013-14 and onwards also does not arise.
AARTI DHARMEN SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25 (1) (1) , MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22371 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82827&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.