-
First proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11 to 13 have been duly fulfilled by the said trust. The benefit of retrospective application alone could be the intention of the legislature and this point is further strengthened by the Explanatory Notes to Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide its Circular No. 01/2015 dated 21.1.2015.
M/S. BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4) MYSURU.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22250 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82359&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has examined the issue of deduction claimed u/s 80IA for the power unit of the company. AO had examined the documents and explanations submitted before him. Thereafter the AO had taken one of the plausible view of netting up of interest expenses with interest income in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. Therefore, under these circumstances it cannot be said that the order of the AO is erroneous.
M/S SINGHAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CC-4 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22249 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82360&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find from the pages 3 to 24 of the paper book, which is a copy of the trust deed of the assessee trust, that it’s objects have been bifurcated in the nature of the education, relief to poors, medical relief, and object of general public utility. We are agreed with the finding of the Learned CIT(E) that above object cannot be called as charitable in nature.
NATIONAL CRIME INVESTIGATION BUREAU VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22248 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82362&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not disputed the fact that soil leveling and other civil works carried out by the assessee is not required for installation of solar power panels. Therefore, the expenditure which is incurred by the assessee in the process of installation of solar panels is for the purpose of solar power plant. Thus the cost of said work cannot be separated from the installation of solar power plant and entire cost of solar power plant is eligible for depreciation as applicable for plant and machinery.
M/S. CHANDRALEELA POWER ENERGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ITO WARD- 6 (3) JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22247 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82363&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Following the Coordinate Bench decision in assessee’s own case for earlier years and considering the principle of consistency, we see no reason to deviate from the earlier decision and accordingly, for the purposes of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd shall be treated as a cooperative society. Therefore, interest on FDRs placed by the assessee society with such cooperative society shall be eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and such claim cannot be denied by virtue of provisions of Section 80P(4) of the Act.
M/S JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-06, JAIPUR AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22246 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82364&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled that if it is a charge for service rendered by the commercial agency and the amount of fee levied is based on the expenses incurred by the Government rendering the fee. Unlike the tax which is compulsory extraction of money, enforceable by law and not in return of any services rendered. The distinction between the tax and the fee is that tax is levied as a part of common burden while fee is payment for a special benefit of privilege. Fee confers some advantage and is a return of consideration for services rendered.
QATALYS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, Q SOURCE GLOBAL CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED, JEANS PARK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22245 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82647&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is apparent that the AO had made addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of disclosure made by Shri Nayan Thakkar by bifurcating the amount of ₹ 12 crore into three parts, ₹ 8 crore in the hands of Kunvarji Finance Private Limited, ₹ 2 crore in the hands of Shri Nayan Thakkar and ₹ 2 crore in the hands of the assessee as amount received for providing client code modification.
PRI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS M/S KUNVARJI COMMODITIES BROKERS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22244 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82648&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Prior to issuance of the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017, petitioners were subjected to proceedings under the Act though the income tax proceedings were concluded on December 30, 2017 to the effect that issue relating to escaped income was left to be decided by the authorities under the Black Money Act. It is also evident that income tax proceedings pertaining to the petitioners were reopened following receipt of information in respect of undisclosed asset by the competent authority in terms of agreements entered into by the Central Government under Section 90 or Section 90A of the Act.
ANILA RASIKLAL MEHTA AND OTHERS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22243 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82649&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are unable to accept this contention of the assessee in view of the finding of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) that the facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2007-08 were entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the year under appeal. Hence, the profit adopted for that year cannot mechanically be adopted for the year under appeal as this Tribunal has already considered the facts on record and expressed its view.
M/S ANANT STEELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO-1 (4) INDORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22242 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82316&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interest on refund either it can be directly given by the Department to the assessee or as in the present case, suppose if some tax liability is arising with regard to the assessee in respect of the earlier years then the interest on the refund amount if adjusted vis-à-vis those outstanding tax liability i.e. also deemed payment of interest. It has been held in the case of Avada Trading Co. (P.) Ltd.
M/S. FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (2), PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22241 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82320&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once there is a categorical finding in this regard, the invocation of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) fails. Accordingly we hold that that the disallowance of depreciation by invocation of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) in this regard fails on account of lack of jurisdiction.
M/S PIK STUDIOS P. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PENS P. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-8 (2) /INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8 (2) MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22240 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82321&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 220(6) Recovery of demand: A Petitioner invoking the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court is expected to approach with clean hands. Instead, there is gross suppression and misstatement, which led to a false projection of the outstanding liability due from the petitioner. Also, the Petitioner ought not to have sought adjournment before the CIT(A) on the ground that the earlier year is pending without seeking modification of the Court's order. Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 lakh. (Note: The Supreme Court has stayed recovery of the demand)
Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22239 (HC-DELHI) · Section 220(6)
-
S. 10(38) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: As the detailed explanation of the assessee does not sufficiently discharge the onus on proving the source of impugned deposits, the impugned addition should be restricted to 30% only with a rider that same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other assessment year
Neha Chowdhary vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22238 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 10(38)
-
Attachment of property under Schedule II: Unless there is preference given to the Crown debt by a statute, the dues of a secured creditor have preference over Crown debts. As a charge over the property was created much prior to the notice issued by the TRO under Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act and the sale of the property was pursuant to the order passed by the DRT, the sale is valid
Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22237 (SC)
-
When the loss of earlier years have already lapsed, then the same cannot be notionally carried forward and set off against the profit and gains of the assessee's business for the year under consideration in computing the quantum of deduction under section 80IA(1) of the Act, 1961.
VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22236 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 80IA
-
When the object of the Assessee is to increase share capital, the expenses incurred in expanding share capital would be in capital field.
GMR Industries Ltd Vs The CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22235 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
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. The internal decision taken by two related concerns cannot be a ground in allowing the claim of write off.
Tektronix (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22234 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Though the Act mandates Tax Residency Certificate of Austria, non-production of the same before the Ld. Revenue Authorities shall not enable the Ld. Revenue Authorities not to grant the benefit of the Treaty to the assesse.
Sreenivasa Reddy Cheemalamarri Vs Income-tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22233 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
There is no transfer of property by the assessees in fact it is acquisition of property by the assessees in the names of their children and it is not the case of transfer or gain on sale of property.
Smt. R.Mangala Devi Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22232 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
The loss that has been occurred to the assessee because of those factors which are very much irrecoverable and in the practical context, these have to be allowed since it has been incurred by the assessee for facilitating the carrying on of the business of the assessee.
The Washim Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22231 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.