-
The assessee has taken housing loan of ₹ 2,25,00,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., on 28.01.2011 and said loan has been directly paid to Hiranandani constructions Pvt Ltd. Since the installment paid for purchase of flat is in excess of amount needs to be paid, in the schedule of payments the developer has paid interest of ₹ 13,62,658/- calculated @ 12% on excess money received before the due date of payment from the assessee.
BIPIN BHUPENDRA MODY VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE – 18 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22310 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82543&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AS-14, nowhere prescribed for different method of computation of net worth of undertaking acquired by way of slump sale for different purposes. In this case, the assessee although, followed AS-14 for accounting of acquisition of business, while arriving at goodwill, it has revalued its assets, which is different from value of assets, as per books of accounts of erstwhile proprietorship firm. When it comes to payment of capital gain on slump sale, the proprietor of erstwhile firm has taken net worth as per books of accounts of firm as on the date of acquisition.
ABHISHRI PACKAGING PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT-9 (1) (1) MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22309 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Disallowances/ additions made by the AO in respect of depreciation on non-existing assets and prior period expenses were deleted by this Tribunal vide order dated 28-08-2017. Thus the additions itself are not in existence then the penalty levied by the AO would not survive. The ld. DR has submitted that the Department has filed an appeal against the order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, however the findings of this Tribunal on these issues have not been disturbed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court till date.
THE ACIT CIRCLE – 2 AJMER VERSUS M/S. AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22308 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82517&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue authority are not to put on blinkers and ignore the overwhelming surrounding circumstances. CIT(A)’s reliance upon the case laws and the circular is totally not applicable on the facts of the present case. The facts of the case prima facie indicate that assessee has received sums abroad from foreign concern on account of services rendered in India. In these circumstances it was incumbent upon the assessee to cogently rebut that assessee has not received any sums abroad for services rendered in India which could have been transferred from abroad in his Indian account through these concerns.
DCIT (IT) -4 (1) (2) MUMBAI VERSUS SHRI ARUN MADHVACHARI RANGACHARI C/O. DAR MEDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22307 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82523&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The product manufactured by the assessee as per the license of manufacturing issued by the authorities is a Fungicide namely, Trichoderma Viride. This product of Fungicides is also a prohibited item covered under Item no. 15 of Schedule XIII part B of the I.T. Act. Thus, the ld. CIT (A) after examination of the certificates issued by SIIDC, UEPPCB, TNAU, AC Customs & Central Excise, the product manufactured (Trichoderma Viride).
AJAY VERMA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-59 (3) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22306 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82524&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a perusal of the lease and license agreement it is seen that burden of paying the property tax is on the licensor. As per the mutual agreement between the parties, the licensee agreed to reimburse the property tax to the licensor save and except any late fee / charge for any statutory dues. Thus, as could be seen from the aforesaid terms of the agreement, the reimbursement of property tax by the assessee to the licensor is purely contractual and not a statutory liability.
AREVA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–14 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22305 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82526&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is only after recording of such satisfaction that the A.O can take recourse to the provisions of Sec.14A(2) and (3) r.w Rule 8D of the Rules. Although, we are in agreement with the claim of the ld. A.R that in the absence of recording of the requisite satisfaction as regards the correctness of an assesse’s claim of disallowance under Sec.14A, the A.O is divested of his jurisdiction to dislodge the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee under Sec. 14A of the Act, but then, we find that there is no such infraction of the said statutory requirement by the A.O in the case before us.
KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-3 (2) (3), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22304 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82512&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee claims to be an agriculturist but the closure scrutiny of the case reveals that the assessee is co-owner of 300 bighas of land and further, he is into the business of money lending, contract business, therefore, in our view, the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was a reasonable order as it merely restricted to ₹ 2,50,000 /-. Hence, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, this Ground is dismissed.
SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY, S/O. LATE SHRI BABU RAM PANDEY VERSUS ACIT-2, AGRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22303 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82509&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, assessee has taken permanent membership of CCI Club and assessee is allowed to use the facility of the club and it can never create any capital assets. As the assessee can only utilize the facility and in case, he decides to surrender the membership, he will not get any refund. Therefore, assessee does not get any right by becoming a member.
SHAILENDER MAYANK HEMCHAND VERSUS ACIT-19 (3), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22302 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82497&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 201 of the Act provides that where any person, including the principal officer of a company or an employer, who is required to deduct tax at source on any sum, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, does not deduct or does not pay such tax or fails to pay such tax, after making the deduction, then such person shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax. Therefore, section 201 of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee.
SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (3) ALLAHABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22301 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82499&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When assessee is engaged in real estate business and is constructing flats which are meant for the purpose of sale/renting purposes as a business, the interest expenses incurred on borrowings are towards revenue field and was correctly charged to Profit and Loss Account as time cost and claimed as deduction while computing income of the assessee.
SHRI A.K. NATARAJAN, VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VILLUPURAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22300 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82504&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Income for the year under consideration of ₹ 447.30 crore and further ₹ 17.89 crore was accrued to the assessee. The assessee offered the same under the head Capital Gain and no other income which is not accrued to the assessee is not liable to tax in the year under consideration. The remaining income was accrued only in subsequent Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 to 2016-17 that is an amount of ₹ 17.89 Crore each in four subsequent years, and the same has been offered for taxation under the head Capital Gain. Even this fact is not disputed by the revenue.
UNIVERSAL MEDICARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CRICLE-3 (2) , MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22299 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82505&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
After careful reading of section 115BBD, we agree with the submission of Ld. AR that there is no provision in that section to eliminate the dividend income from specified foreign company before setting off of loss and similar to the provisions and specific direction present in section 115BBE.
TATA MOTORS LTD. VERSUS DCIT LTU-2, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22298 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82506&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As could be seen from the facts discussed above, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for different quarters of the financial year 2009–10 due to delay in filing of TDS statements. However, while deciding assessee’s appeals for the first three quarters of the financial year 2009–10, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench, we delete the penalty imposed.
SHRI RAVIRAJ RELAMPADDU VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE, THANE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22297 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82508&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The only basis of making impugned addition was loose paper found at the premises of the third party. However, no corresponding incriminating material was found from assessee’s premises which would corroborate the same. In fact, each and every document impounded from assessee’s premises was explained during the course of assessment proceedings and no infirmity could be found in the same. It was incumbent upon Ld. AO to make further inquiries in the matter to substantiate the veracity of the loose paper and bring on record cogent material / evidences to establish that cash was received by the assessee.
D.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S. ANGEL INFRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22296 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82466&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For assessment year 2008-09, Ld.AO passed final assessment order immediately within 2 days of receipt of report from Ld. TPO whereas for assessment year 2009-10 final assessment order was passed after a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of transfer pricing report. Present assessee is an eligible assessee, as defined in section 144C (15) (b) of the Act.
M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2 (1) (1) (1) , BENGALURU. AND JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME – TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22295 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82467&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had purchased immovable property and there was a difference of value as disclosed by the assessee and adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. It is also not a case where the assessee objected before the AO regarding valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The assessee first time made objection before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding valuation of the property.
SHRI JAYKISHAN PARCHANI S/O SHRI ARJUN PARCHANI VERSUS ITO-5 (5) INDORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22294 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82469&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order passed by Ld CIT(A) quashing the impugned order as barred by limitation does not call for any interference, as the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD. wherein held period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A).
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) , CIRCLE-2 (1) , BENGALURU. VERSUS M/S INFOSYS LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22293 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82476&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO considers income from Millennium project as Business income then he should allow all the expenses claimed by the Assessee and therefore the income from Millennium project arrived at by the AO at ₹ 1,17,35,191 was not proper. By reason of this conclusion, there would be only loss from the project Millennium and therefore there is no occasion to allow deduction u/s.80IAB(4)(iii).
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11 (3) , BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22292 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82475&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Ld.CIT(A) examined the details and confirmed the amount to the extent of ₹ 68,24,522/- in respect of 162 cases. During the appeal hearing, for a query from the bench, the Ld.AR neither furnished the actual tax liability nor furnished the details. The case was posted for hearing in as many as 20 occasions and the A.R continuously taken the adjournment.
M/S TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-3 (1) VIJAYAWADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22291 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82474&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.