-
Registration with the Registrar of the Society is not a precondition for granting the registration u/s. 12AA.
Shri Dhar Sabha Vs CIT(Exemptions)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21034 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 12AA
-
Tribunal had concluded that the Assessing Officer had made the additions on the basis of the statement of the partner, namely, Shri Prem Kumar Agrawal. However, the said statement was retracted on the very next day of completion of survey proceedings by way of duly signed affidavit, signed by all the partners. Further, except for the retracted statement of the partner, there was no other material with the Assessing Officer to make such an addition.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND AND FINANCE CO.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21033 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82145&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT while processing the application for registration has to look into the genuineness of the activities of the trust and satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities. The issues raised with regard to the security deposit being not in comparison vis-a-vis the rent received will not have impact on the genuineness of the activities. It is an admitted case that the security received was duly reflected in the books of account.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S SANATAN DHARAM EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21032 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82140&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding recorded by the Tribunal is not disputed that the vehicles added were school buses. Even if transportation was not specifically mentioned in the aims and objects of the society, the same will not make any difference. Carrying children to the schools and back home is an essential for running schools especially if the schools are in rural areas. The safety of students is of utmost importance.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S MARKANDESHWAR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21031 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82141&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Act, the income mentioned in it shall not be included in the total income of previous year. The section nowhere provides that the property should be owned by the trust. The requirement is held for charitable purpose. In the present case, the land though belonged to the government but the construction made on it was held under the trust and it is for the income from such property that application for registration under Section 12AA of the Act was moved.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S MANDIR SHREE MAHAKALI SABHA MANDIR COMPLEX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21030 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82142&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are conscious of the fact that the provision contained in Subsection (22) of Section 10 has been omitted from the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1999 but the assessment year involved in the present case is 1994-95. In this view of the matter, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in Assam State Text Book Production and Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.P. Text Book Corporation. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL VERSUS M/S M.P. PATHYA PUSTAK NIGAM (M.P. TEXT BOOK CORPORATION) BHOPAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21029 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82144&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely on the basis of admission, the assessee cannot be subjected to additions. The Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to observe that unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission, the department would be justified in making additions. In other words the proposition of law as laid down is that the department cannot start with the confessional statement. The confessional statement has to be brought in aid of other materials on record.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT VERSUS NAGESHWAR ENTERPRISES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21028 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82146&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The use of the expression may in Sec.254(2) is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there cannot be any extension of time beyond the said period of six months.
Income tax Appellate Tribunal Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21027 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
Shares being issued against shares is nothing but barter system. Therefore no cash is involved in these transactions. Hence the provision of section 68 does not attract.
DSR Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21026 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
The recognition was valid from 01.04.2001, and which was available during this period. Assessee facility was approved by the competent authority i.e the Secretary DSIR, but there was no approval in form No. 3CM for the impugned Assessment year. From the settled legal position of the law by the various cases of High Courts as discussed what is relevant to decide eligibility for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) is existence of R&D facility and recognition of such facility by the competent authority.
ADVANCE ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES PVT., LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE – 1, THANE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21025 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81826&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Single Judge ought to have upheld the objection of the Revenue and relegated the Assessee to the regular Appellate remedy available to the Assessee against the impugned Reassessment Order under Section 147/148 of the Act for the Assessment year 2008-09. Assesseealso fairly submitted before us that even at this stage, the Assessee may be allowed to avail his remedy by way of appeal before the First Appellate Authority viz., CIT (Appeals), to which the learned Counsel for Revenue Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan also does not have a serious objection.
THE ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 VERSUS S.M. KUTUBUDDIN
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21024 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82121&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings of facts are rendered by the learned Tribunal upholding the findings of the two Authorities below and thus, all the three Authorities have concurrently held against the Assessee that only for want of production of relevant evidence by the Assessee, the Authorities below came to the conclusion that the expenses incurred by the Assessee on various items as well as the contribution made to Lady Ampthil Hospital were not allowable expenses.
M/S. ATOFINA PEROXIDES INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21023 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82123&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The membership card is only a personal privilege granted by the petitioner. Exchange and that no right to that card has ever been transferred to the card holder for the petitioner. Exchange so as to enable it's attachment by the Income Tax Department. So far as security deposit is concerned, petitioners would have a priority on the security deposits over the Income Tax Department.
STOCK EXCHANGE BOMBAY VERSUS VARUGHESE P. DANIAL, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16 (1) & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21022 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82124&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the perusal of the paper book, it is evident that one of the factor considered by the CIT (E) was denial of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. It would be pertinent to note here that while dealing with the issue of Section 12AA of the Act, the Tribunal dealt with the objection with regard to amassing capital fund and fixed assets. It was concluded that corpus created and the land and building was acquired out of donations, for setting up the school.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S THE RURAL EDUCATION & WOMEN WELFARE SOCIETY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21021 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82126&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, we are dealing with a situation as envisaged under rule 46A(1). It is evident from the facts on record, learned Commissioner (Appeals) on his own has neither made any enquiry nor has called for any evidences from the assessee. It is the assessee who, on his own, has furnished the additional evidences to explain the information contained in CIB/AIR report. Therefore, the procedure laid down in sub–rule (2) and (3) or rule 46A, has to be followed.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–19 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS RAJENDRA S. BHATE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21020 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81830&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Loss arising to a US entity upon cancellation of shares held in its Indian wholly owned subsidiary pursuant to capital reduction during AY 2011-12 should be allowed as long-term capital loss eligible to be carried forward.
Carestream Health INC Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21019 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital/ premium: Application seeking open court oral hearing is rejected. There is no substance in the Review Petition seeking review of PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC) and the same is dismissed
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21018 (SC) · Section 68
-
Undisputed facts in the instant case is that the assessee has applied for grant of Direct Broker Licence to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority on 01.12.2010 which was granted to the assessee only in February, 2012, therefore in view of RAMARAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED we hold that the business of the assessee has been set up only in February, 2012.
MARUTI INSURANCE BROKING PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-16 (1), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21017 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81814&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the facts of the present case, the assessee itself has removed the defect without being intimated by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the original return of income cannot be treated as invalid as there is no failure on the part of the assessee to remove the defect within the time limit permitted by the Assessing Officer.
B.E. BILLIMORIA & CO. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21016 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81816&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) shows that any amount received by an individual without consideration and the aggregate value exceeds 50,000, the whole of the aggregate value is liable to be treated as income under the head income from other sources.
SMT. CYNTHIA RAMONA CHELLAPPA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD – 15 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21015 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81817&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.