-
Education cess is not a disallowable expenditure u/s 40(a)(ii) of the Act having been expressly excluded from section 40(a)(ii) of the Act.
Sicpa India Private Ltd Vs Addl.CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22230 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(ii)
-
Since the predecessor could not have claimed depreciation on the amount of trademark presented by revaluation reserve, by virtue of the 5th proviso to Sec. 32(1), depreciation to that extent is also not available in the hands of the assessee company also.
PIK Studios P. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 32(1)
-
By entering into an option agreement, the assessee had renounced its right to market unit No.1 and 2 for a period of 9 months from the date of the option agreement and, because of covenant by way of an option agreement with the party and hence, any amount received in pursuance of said agreement is in the nature of compensation which is assessable under the head income from other sources as rightly considered by the assesse.
Redwood IT Services P. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21232 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
We have already held that the provision for warrant expenses is not contingent and has to be allowed as deduction while computing income under the head Income from Business & Profession. As a consequence of such finding, the addition made to the book profits is to be deleted because the liability cannot be said to be contingent.
M/s Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21231 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37
-
The provision for gratuity is ascertained liability and the same falls outside the scope of the provisions of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Sec.115JB warranting no addition to the book profits.
KMF Infotech Ltd., Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21230 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 115JB
-
Sec.80-IA(4) certainly does not give an impression that the assessee has to do the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility all by itself without engaging any contractor.
Rajahmundry Expressway Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21229 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IA
-
The satisfaction note has been recorded in respect of the appellant and the profit of G.T.Krishna Murthy as well as profit of M/s Sree Venkatesha Bottles has also been worked out. Therefore, we are satisfied that the requirement as laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Calcutta Knitwears as well as the Circular dated 31.12.2015 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes has been complied with.
M/S. SRI. VENKATESHA BOTTLES VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21228 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82630&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A careful and conjoint reading of the two provisions i.e. Sections 105 and 108 would therefore make it clear that imposition of penalty is to be proceeded separately as a separate proceeding. Merely because in the assessment order the AO comes to a conclusion that the assessee had failed to collect the STT or had failed to pay such STT to the credit of the Central Government, it would not ipso-facto lead to imposition of penalty.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VERSUS NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21227 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82631&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The powers under Section 147 of the Act have been now defined without any equivocation and without going to deep into it it is safe to say that a mere change of opinion cannot be considered within the ambit of phrase reason to believe.
THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S SWARAJ ENGINES LTD MOHALI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21226 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82632&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The first appellate authority, after due deliberation, had returned a finding of fact that Taj India was not acting as agent of the assessee but it had obtained the right of distribution of the channel for itself and subsequently, it had entered into contracts with other parties in its own name in which the assessee was not a party.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -4 VERSUS TAJ TV LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21225 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Identical questions have been answered by this Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue vide order passed in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. National Health and Education Society as held pharmacy store of the respondent was ancillary to the main object of running the hospital.
CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI VERSUS NATIONAL HEALTH & EDUCATION SOCIETY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21224 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82638&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondent-assessee had furnished the commencement certificate issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation dated 10.09.2007 and, occupation certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 26.02.2013, besides other documents which clearly shows that there were approvals which cover full occupation / permission for all the blocks of the building project.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 VERSUS RATTANCHAND RIKHABDAS JAIN CHEMICAL WORKS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21223 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82639&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance company, the AO had to resort to Section 44 and the prescribed rules, and could not have applied Section 28 to 43B, since the same were excluded from the purview of Section 44.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21222 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 14A, 44
-
The revenue authorities cannot become a stifling force and a stumbling block for trade and commerce. They should realize and be sensitive to the fact that by their acts and omissions, they are impeding the growth of trade and commerce. They are filing the very hen that lays the golden egg. They cannot take a fool hardy and short sighted approach by withholding refunds where due.
Ericsson India Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21221 (HC-DELHI)
-
On occasions where client codes for institutional trades were not modified by the broker, the trades were treated as squared off trades and a lower STT was levied. This resulted in the exchange charging a lower STT from the member broker while the member broker collected a higher delivery based STT from the client.
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Vs National Stock Exchange
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21220 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
As obvious that vice president manufacturing was having sufficient knowledge and experience of the technology and its standards used by the assessee in US. The Vice President was not an ordinary engineer but was having sufficient experience, exposure and knowledge about the technology of the assessee and was also having expertise to ensure the implementation of the standards of the assessee in India.
GENERAL MOTORS OVERSEAS CORPORATION VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 3 (1). MUMBAI, DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIOAL TAXATION) - 3 (1).
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21219 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82301&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For land to be excluded from capital asset, it has to be agricultural land in India; such land to be not agricultural must fulfill two conditions viz. it must be land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality or cantonment board and which has a population of not less than 10,000. These two conditions are pre-conditions and must be read conjunctively.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, THANE VERSUS ANTHONY JOHN PEREIRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21218 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82625&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer himself had recorded in the assessment order that the petitioner had redeemed the SARs during the financial year 1997-98 relating to the assessment year 1998-99 which is prior to insertion of clause (iiia) to Section 17(2) of the Act w.e.f 1.4.2000.
SUMIT BHATTACHARYA VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21217 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82626&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
View taken by the CIT(A) that 17.5% of the purchases be added to the total income of the assessee as the profit element was a reasonable one. It was also noted that the said percentage was accepted by the assessee with a view to close the litigation. Nothing was brought on record by the Revenue to contradict the findings recorded by the CIT(A).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, MUMBAI. VERSUS JAKHARIA FABRIC PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21216 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82627&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition cannot be made under Section 41(1) of the Act, since the liability of the assessee Bank to pay back the amounts to the customers in respect of such stale Demand Drafts and Pay Orders does not cease in law.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II TRICHIRAPALLI. VERSUS M/S. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21215 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82628&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.