-
S. 2(47)/45: A reduction of capital results in an "extinguishment of rights" in the shares and constitutes a "transfer‟. The fact that the percentage of shareholding remains unchanged even after the reduction is irrelevant. The loss arising from the cancellation of shares is entitled to indexation and is allowable as a long-term capital loss (Bennett Coleman 133 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB) distinguished, all imp verdicts referred)
Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21094 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(47), 45
-
It is not necessary that the proprietor of the institution must have qualified degree. The predominant purpose of service needs to be tested for falling u/s.44AA of the Act, 1961 which is existing in the present case.
Ranjita Jena Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21093 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · Sections 44AA, 271A
-
When the payments have been electronically made on 07.01.2011, which is the due date for deposit of TDS and the money has flown from the bank account of the assessee, it should not make any difference when the same was shown as credited on OLTAS.
BPTP Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21092 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 201(1A)
-
Any legal expenses incurred by the assessee for borrowing money, irrespective of whether the borrowing went in for a revenue purpose or for a capital purpose, must be necessarily regarded as an item of revenue outgoing and allowed deduction for the said expenses to assesse.
Aker Powergas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21091 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
It is abundantly clear that assessee had never intimated to the Department that his seized cash should be adjusted against his advance tax/tax liability therefore the Department is entitled to levy the interest on the outstanding demand.
Shri Ravinder Aggarwal Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21090 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
The AO upon examination of books accepted the trading results of assessee as also the purchase of gold. Having accepted the trading results, it is not open for the Assessing Officer to say that the assessee introduced unexplained and unaccounted money into the capital.
Deepak Garg Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21089 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 41
-
Mere running a nursing home/hospital does not convert a medical doctor into a business person. Assessee is a professional and the provisions of section 44AA/44AB apply to the assesse.
Dr. Smt. Ranjana S. Nargolkar Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21088 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 44AB, 271B
-
Inaction on the part of ld. CIT in passing the order u/s.264 became a raison d'etre for the late filing of appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Such a delay in my considered opinion constitutes a reasonable cause for the late presentation of the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority.
Manisha Vilas Munot Vs TRO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21087 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 264
-
The legislature did not make the law retrospective in operation nor were pending proceedings as was done when Sec.142A was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.r.e.f. from 15.11.1972. It cannot also be said that Sec.142A as inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 has retrospective effect.
Shetty Constructions Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21086 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 142A
-
The expenditure incurred for acquiring or replacing any machinery to run a factory or mill should be treated as capital expenditure in view of the decision in the case of Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills P. Ltd. wherein salient findings are summarised as under. Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Saravana Spinning Mills P. Ltd. it held that each machine in a textile mill has an independent role to play in the mill and each machine is part of the integrated process of manufacture of yarn and is integrally connected to the other machines in the mill.
M/S. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, VIRUDHUNAGAR., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21085 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81987&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has filed complete set of documents with regard to each and every amount of loan given to assessee right from 03/01/2012 to 02/11/2012 and also explained corresponding source of income for amount transferred to the assessee. We further noted that the loan creditor has explained the source of income out of encashment of mutual funds investments, sale of listed equity shares for which necessary contract notes from brokers and bank statement has been filed.
ITO-25 (3) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S MECHAN RESORTS LLP, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21084 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81989&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has offered this income in the return of income and no addition is made by the AO on this account, therefore, the AO was not under any obligation to explain and make the assessee known about the nature of charge of default committed by the assessee.
SMT. LATA AGARWAL VERSUS THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21083 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81995&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a valid satisfaction because it is categorically mentioned in the satisfaction note that, assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars with a view to evade the tax and the reason described above may be treated as satisfaction note for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the above two additions made. Then, on the basis of aforesaid satisfaction recorded by the AO, notice was issued to the assessee company u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act which has never been challenged by the assessee company.
M/S. M AND M MACHINE CRAFT (P) LTD., C/O M/S. MALIK AND CO. (ADVOCATES) VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE 6 (1), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21082 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82001&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the I.T.Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to, whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
SRI. KASIMALI M. SAYYAD C/O. A RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND ASSOCIATES, GADAG VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD – 1, GADAG.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21081 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82004&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under section 37(1), any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession.
M/S. KOVILAKAM HOTELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), TRICHUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21080 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82005&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is market practice that if there is any change in prices of handsets by competitors, change in life of mobile model, change in market demand of particular model which affects the sales, the distributor is protected by the Trade Price Protection.
Nokia India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21079 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The High Court ought not to have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, it would be appropriate and proper, in the interests of justice, for the writ petition to be heard on merits by the High Court, subject to payment of costs, which would be a condition precedent.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21078 (SC)
-
Tribunal has only the power and authority to see that the Revenue is acting according to the relevant circulars prescribing tax effect. If it is acting according to the circular, then the wisdom of the Revenue in taking a decision in terms of a particular clause in the circular is not to be questioned by the tribunal or the assesse.
ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs PRINCIPAL CIT- 5
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21077 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The process of converting raw Urad into Urad Dhal is a manufacturing activity undertaken by the Assessee and therefore, the Assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VERSUS SMT. S. MAHALAKSHMI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21076 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82212&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has ignored the material which is required to be considered or has taken into consideration the material which is not relevant. Moreover, it is not the case of the Revenue that the Tribunal has arrived at the aforesaid finding of fact without any evidence. Therefore, the application of Section 100 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be said to be ignored by the Tribunal, as canvassed by the Revenue.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT 3 VERSUS GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21075 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82213&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.