-
Coercive Recovery of taxes etc during Corona Virus crisis: The orders of the Allahabad & Kerala High Courts directing the authorities to defer coercive recovery of taxes is stayed in view of the stand of the Government that the Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every one
UOI vs. P. D. Sunny
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22290 (SC)
-
Here in the case in hand, the Assessee is entitled to seek exemption by way of deduction under Section 10B, since it is a 100% EOU, which is an admitted fact. In that capacity, the Assessee claimed exemption / deduction of a sum of ₹ 29,26,65,024/- from out of the profit and gain of the business which amounts to ₹ 30,82,27,633/-. Also it claimed unabsorbed brought forward depreciation allowances relating to AY 2001-02 to the extent of ₹ 1,55,62,609/-, thereby shown the taxable income as Nil in the Return submitted for the AY 2004- 05.
M/S. COMSTAR AUTOMATIVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD., VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE - I (3), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22289 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82716&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In terms of the Circular No.15 dated 8.5.1969, for the purpose of calculation of tax deductible at source under section 192, self-certification on the part of the employee that the conveyance was owned by him and being used by him for the purposes of employment was adequate. The present case relates to uniform allowance, which as noticed earlier is exempt from tax under section 10(14)(i) of the Act read with rule 2BB(1)(f) of the rules to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) VERSUS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22288 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82715&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is clearly beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in view of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act, the respondent has to record the reason as to whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts for its assessment for the year under consideration.
ASIAN TUBES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (1) (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22287 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82714&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We cannot believe this fact of the revenue because no statement of sellers were recorded by the department. If there was some doubt, revenue ought to have recorded statement of the seller along with statement of witnesses. The Department does not have any other evidence other than the so-called banachhitti wherein appellant’s son has made an agreement to purchase land at the rate of ₹ 27 lakhs.
PUKHRAJ LALCHAND BAGRECHA VERSUS THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4) AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22286 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82444&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. If the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. BUZZWORKS BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22285 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82440&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Earlier the appeal of the assessee was heard by the Tribunal on 7-02-2019 but it was released on account of other connected appeals of the group concerns which are required to be heard together.
SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22284 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82439&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The sale of properties by the assessee has nexus with the business of the assessee, Thus, confirms the findings of the AO/ITAT. The finding of fact cannot be regarded as perverse, so as to give rise to any substantial question of law or so as to warrant interference.
Afonso Real Estate Developers Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22283 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Supreme court is granting the stay in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every one.
UNION OF INDIA Vs P.D. SUNNY & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22282 (SC)
-
In the present case, the assessee had received Rs.57 lakhs due to waiver of loan, hence the requirement u/s 28(iv) was not satisfied and therefore could not be held as taxable.
Essar Shipping Limited Vs Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22281 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 28(iv)
-
Most taxes are paid online without human to human contact and hence there is no legal rationale for the Kerala HC to pass such broad omnibus directions.
Order of Amit Rawal Vs High Court
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22280 (HC-KERALA)
-
In the present case, not even whisper, that claim of 100% depreciation by the assessee, 25% of which was disallowed was with intend to evade tax. It was due to bonafide mistake and oversight that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation instead of 75%. In claiming 100% depreciation there was no intention to evade tax and the said claim was only a bonafide mistake.
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22279 (SC) · Section 143(1-A)
-
Since the deletion of expression cess from the Income Tax Bill, 1961, was deliberate, there is no question of reintroducing this expression in Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act and that too, under the guise of interpretation of taxing statute.
Sesa Goa Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22278 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(ii)
-
The assessee want to avail this Scheme Vivad Se Vishwas, 2020 to avoid litigation and get peace of mind and ready to pay disputed income tax without interest and imposing penalty.
Sh. Gaurav Bajaj Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22277 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is well settled that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition on the basis of which the said penalty was levied is not in existence, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders.
Smt. Jagdish Kaur Dhillon Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22276 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Once the expenses for holding this event is in connection with business in India, it is only a natural corollary thereto that income from participation, in this event, to a non-resident has a business connection in India.
Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22275 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee, the grounds raised in the CO are independent of the appeal filed by the Revenue and therefore such a cross objection cannot be dismissed simply on the ground of dismissal of the appeal by the revenue involving low tax effect. The residential premises of the Assessee was searched u/s. 132 of the Act on 26.10.2007.
SHRI. G. SOMASHEKAR REDDY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1 (3), BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22274 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
DR before us at the time of hearing has not brought any iota of evidence suggesting that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not pending either at the time of filing the revisionary application or passing the revisionary order under section 264 of the Act. Thus as a matter of fact the appeal of the assessee was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) during the relevant time when the matter was decided by the Ld. CIT under section 264 of the Act.
DIGJAM LIMITED (FORMERLY BIRLA VXL LIMITED) VERSUS THE ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 2, JAMNAGAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22273 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82429&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the transactions are between mutually / closely associated with the persons i.e. company, directors and shareholders of the company. The amount was repaid otherwise than by crossed cheque. The transactions are genuine which were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The interest paid was also allowed by the AO in the assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act.
M/S SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KAKINADA RANGE KAKINADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22272 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82430&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was not the case of the respondent-assessee that it was a mistake apparent from the record which was required to be rectified. As discussed above, all mistakes cannot be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. Only a mistake which is apparent from the record can be rectified under the said provision.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 MUMBAI VERSUS RONAK PARIKH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22271 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82698&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.