-
On the issue whether communication dated 22.03.2018 was in the nature of determination of the liability, both the learned counsel were heard at considerable length, at the end of which it was agreed by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Advocate for the Department, that the communication dated 22.03.2018 could be treated as a show cause notice and the Department be permitted to conclude the issue within a reasonable time, provided the interim order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court on 03.04.2018 was continued.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER -UNIT -1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21214 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82629&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A genuine arrangement cannot be disregarded as the same results or operates to minimize the assessee's tax liability.
Md. Hussain Habib Pathan Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21213 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no specification for any technical expertise which the assessee company has sought from M/s. Korea Search. From all the angles the agreement shows that M/s Korea Search have no permanent establishment in India is working only as a placement services having data base of various persons who want job.
D&H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21212 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
The assessee had redeemed the SAR's prior to insertion of clause (iiia) to Sec.17(2). The said amount, therefore, could not have been treated as a perquisite to be included as income under the head salaries.
Sumit Bhattacharya Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21211 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The facts of the case are same as in assessment year 2010-11, respectfully following the order of the ld. CIT(A)-36 for assessment year 2010-11, it is held that the assessee cannot be said to be involved in carrying on any business, trade or commerce and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefit of section 11 with consequential benefits.
ITO (E), TRUST WARD 1 (1), DELHI VERSUS M/S ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION AND APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21210 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82285&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the provisions of chapter X have been invoked to alter an expenditure, namely the mobilisation and demobilisation charges paid for a qualifying ship, an item which has no bearing on the income as computed under Chapter XIIG and accordingly the provisions of Chapter X have no application in computing the income of the assessee chargeable to tax as per Chapter XII-G of the Act.
ESSAR SHIPPING LTD. VERSUS A.C.I.T. -5 (1) (2), MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21209 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No return of income has been filed by OAS for the relevant assessment year. However, there are credits in the bank account that are liable to be explained by the entity for the purposes of determination of taxability.
M/S. OASYS GREEN TECH PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD – 5 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21208 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82615&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admitted position is that there is no shortfall as on date as confirmed by the officer, even though there was a shortfall, according to the Department, as on date of application before the SC. On an overall consideration of the matter, this is not a case where the assessee has consciously short-paid admitted tax. There are computational differences that exist that could well be the reason for the remittances falling short of the required amounts.
KRISHNA VENKATA RAMANA SHETTY VERSUS INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ADDITIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21207 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82616&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the various pronouncements, the principle discernible is that, it is the bounden duty of the court to ascertain for what purpose the legal fiction has been created. It is also the duty of the Court to imagine the fiction with all real consequences and instances unless prohibited from doing so. That apart, the use of the term deemed has to be read in its context and further the fullest logical purpose and import are to be understood. It is because in modern legislation, the term deemed has been used for manifold purposes.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS ADDOR FOUNDATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21206 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82617&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Procedure followed by the revenue in time barring assessments is that while the order may not be uploaded immediately, a DIN number is generated and the order of assessment sent manually. In the present case, the DIN number appears to have been issued on 28.12.2019 and the assessment order in hard copy issued on the same date franked by the post office on 30.12.2019 and served upon the assessee on 02.01.2020, (though returned) with the endorsement 'left'.
INDO LLOYD FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2 (4), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21205 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - The fact that the assessee made a request for reasons recorded prior to filing the return of income and thereafter did not seek a copy of reasons recorded is no ground to deny the assessee the benefit of looking into the reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s. 147.
M/s Hotel Woodside Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21204 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Any income generated by the assessee from events like Garba is utilised fully for the purposes of the objects of the assesse. The activities like organizing the event of Garba including the sale of tickets and issue of passes etc. cannot be termed as business.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Vs UNITED WAY OF BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21203 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 11
-
As the charge over the property was created much prior to the issuance of notice under Rule 2 of Schedule II to the Act by Respondent No.4 (TRO), we find force in the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant., directs MIDC to issue 'no objection' certificate to the appellant.
Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21202 (SC)
-
The asset acquired under amalgamation in the year 2008 is covered u/s. 47(vi) (transactions that cannot be regarded as transfer). There was no transfer that took place on 01.04.2008 and hence, the period of holding of the assets should be considered as more than 36 months.
The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s.Feroke Boards Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21201 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Assessee woud be entitled to India-Australia Treaty wherein as per Article-15, salary income of resident of Australia is taxable only in Australia.
Shri Paul Xavier Antony samy Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21200 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Just because there is abnormal increase in the cost, does not mean that assessee has not incurred this expenditure for its business. Service fee expended by the assessee is revenue in nature, allowable u/s 37.
Phillip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21199 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37
-
S. 90(3): The law laid down in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) that once an income of an Indian assessee is taxable in the treaty partner source jurisdiction under a treaty provision, the same cannot be included in its total income taxable in India as well i.e. the residence jurisdiction, is no longer good law in view of s. 90(3) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2004 read with Notification no. 91 of 2008 dated 28.08.2008. The substitution of s. 90 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 does not affect the validity of the said Notification. The mere amendment or substitution of a section does not affect the validity of notifications, circulars and instructions issued therein (all imp judgements referred).
Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21198 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 90(3)
-
S. 153C: Compliance with the requirements of s. 153C is mandatory. (i) If the AO of the searched person is different from the AO of the other person, the AO of the searched person is required to transmit the satisfaction note & seized documents to the AO of the other person. He is also required to make a note in the file of the searched person that he has done so. However, the same is for administrative convenience and the failure by the AO of the searched person to make a note in the file of the searched person, will not vitiate the proceedings u/s 153C. (ii) If the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient for the AO to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. Once the note says so, the requirement of s. 153C is fulfilled. In such case, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the AO, as he himself is the AO of the searched person and also the AO of the other person. However, he must be conscious and satisfied that the documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note would be qua the other person. The requirement of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person would not be there as he himself will be the AO of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself
Super Malls Private Limited vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21197 (SC) · Section 153C
-
S. 92A(2): The law in Diageo India Pvt Ltd 47 SOT 252 that the definition of "Associated Enterprises" in section 92A(1)(a) & (b) is the basic rule which is unaffected by the specific instances referred to in s. 92A(2) is not good law in view of the amendment by the FA 2002 and CBDT Circular No. 8 dated 27.08.2008. The correct law as held in Veer Gems 95 taxmann.16 (Guj) is that S. 92A(2) restricts the scope of S. 92A(1) and it is only when the criterion specified in sub section (2) is satisfied, two enterprises can be treated as associated enterprises. Judgements of non jurisdictional High Courts are binding on the Tribunal
Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21196 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92A(2)
-
S. 80-IA(4): As per s. 575 of the Companies Act, the conversion of a partnership firm into a company under Part IX causes a statutory vesting of all assets of the firm into the company without the need for a conveyance. The business of the firm is carried on by the company and the latter is eligible for the benefits of s. 80-IA.
CIT vs. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21195 (SC) · Section 80-IA(4)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.