-
Form-10 seeking exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 31.03.2016 and the application seeking condonation of delay was filed on 06.09.2018. It is a settled principle of law that when the claim is made belatedly, it is open to the claimant to offer explanation for the delay so brooked, subsequent to making the claim also vide Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGAPPA in the absence of statutory intent to the contrary.
M/S. SOUTH INDIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BANGALORE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21014 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82061&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal had returned a finding of fact that the assessee had fled copies of purchase bills, copies of purchase/ sale invoices, challan cum tax invoices in respect of the purchases, extracts of stock ledger showing entry/exit of the materials purchased, copies of bank statements to show that payment for such purchases were made through regular banking channels, etc., to establish the genuineness of the purchases.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, MUMBAI VERSUS VAMAN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21013 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Thereby holding in favour of the assessee that the assessee is entitled to avail of the unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of eight years which was prescribed under the unamended Section 32 of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 VERSUS M/S. CENRAL ELECTRONICS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21012 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82071&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has prima facie case for grant of stay subject to conditions.
Genpact India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21011 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is the parent entity, who initiates demerger and incur expenditure for legal and professional expenses in relation to such demerger and the resultant company, comes into existence as a result of demerger only.
NIIT Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21010 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 35DD
-
The assessee herein has given advance for purchase of land in the year 2005 and accordingly acquired right for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said right constitutes capital asset within the meaning of sec.2(14) of the Act. Subsequent money received for giving up the said right constitutes capital gains in the hands of the assesse.
Shri Narayan Mandyam Veerabhudhi Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21009 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
The matter raised before us is debatable as to whether the mining of marble block is manufacturing or not and assessee had also intimated the AO. Therefore, the modus operandi in support of the claim is to be covered under the mining and manufacturing activity. Therefore, the matter being debatable cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the Act.
SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT, M/S. V.S. STONE VERSUS THE DCIT CIRCLE – SIKAR SIKAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21008 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81791&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere surmises and conjectures that the assessees had underpriced the sales value cannot be the basis for a pre-determined approach without bringing any third party transactions on record by the Assessing Officer. The available documentary evidences in the form of purchase invoice, sales invoice, various bills and vouchers have not been found defective by the Assessing Officer at any point of time.
SHRI R. PRATAP, SHRI R. PRAKASH, SMT. T.C. USHA, SHRI RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR AND M/S. VIJAYALAXMI CASHEW CO., VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLLAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21007 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81792&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the absence of instructions and directions to implement the circular of Ministry of Commerce (supra), no deduction is permissible as per the Act. However the Act does not define the term services in section 10AA. The SEZ Rules define the services and the activity of the assessee is covered under the definition of services. Therefore, the argument advanced by the Ld.DR is not tenable.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 (1) GUNTUR VERSUS M/S BOMMIDALA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21006 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81793&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are unable to accept the findings of the Assessing Officer that the investors companies are not having sufficient creditworthiness to invest in the assessee company. In light of same, we are of the considered view that the assessee company has discharged the initial onus cast on it in terms of identity and creditworthiness of these two investor companies as well as demonstrating the genuineness of the transaction.
M/S JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-04, JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21005 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81795&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled that it is not necessary that there must be mathematical precision between the fee paid and service rendered. All that is necessary is a reasonable relationship between fee charged and the services rendered. A burden of fee for an additional exercise by the revenue compels the assessee to exercise promptitude or otherwise pay an additional fee. The legislature intent is not to arbitrarily burden the assessee by realising something extra but to call upon the assessee to share the burden of extra exercise due to delay on his part.
K. NIRAI MATHI AZHAGAN VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21004 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82058&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Direction for refund was applicable if no notice would be issued within the time stipulated. In any case, the learned judges had the option to treat the writ petition as an execution application or could have given liberty to the appellant to file an execution application which as per the law of limitation can be filed within 12 years. This aspect has been completely over-looked and not been given due consideration.
KISHORE JAGJIVANDAS TANNA VERSUS JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21003 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82060&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec.234F fee is levied against the privilege granted to allow late filing of return and is levied to ensure proper and timely filing of return.
K.Nirai Mathi Azhagan Vs The Union of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21002 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 234F
-
ITAT - No notional interest income accrued to assessee on capital contributions/loan by partners in absence of profits earned by the Partnership firms.
Minnow Trading Company Pvt. Ltd Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21001 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Clause (b) visualizes listing of shares in future, meaning thereby, the subsequent listing of shares should not be a bar for availing exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. It can be noticed that the VCF Regulations prescribes conditions to be followed at the time of making investments only.
True North Fund IIIA (formerly Known as India Value Fund IIIA) Vs The Income-tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21000 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10(23FB)
-
Condonation of delay: There are large gaps which are unexplained. It is not known whether any action was taken against the officers who are responsible for the inordinate delay. The highest Court cannot be a walk in place to file any time irrespective of period of limitation prescribed. To blame it on the inefficiency of the administration is no more good excuse. Administration directed to hold an inquiry into the aspect as to who is responsible for such inordinate delay and take suitable action against the officers concerned (Post Master General vs. Living Media (2012) 3 SCC 563 referred)
Administrator vs. Swarn Theater
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20999 (SC)
-
Search & Seizure: The action of the GST authorities of camping in the assessee's home for 8 days and placing him under house arrest is illegal & a blatant abuse of powers. It has shocked the conscience of the court. This unauthorised action of the officers may tantamount to an offence under the Indian Penal Code. The officials cannot take shelter behind ignorance of law to justify their illegal actions. It is a matter of deep regret that the Chief Commissioner has attempted to justify such wrongful action on the part of the officials
Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State Of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20998 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
S. 153A: Once the assessment gets abated, the original return filed u/s 139(1) is replaced by the return filed u/s 153A. It is open to both parties, i.e. the assessee and revenue, to make claims for allowance or disallowance. The assessee is entitled to lodge a new claim for deduction etc. which remained to be claimed in his earlier/ regular return of income (Continental Warehousing Corporation 374 ITR 645 (Bom) referred)
PCIT vs. JSW Steel Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20997 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 153A
-
S. 253(3) Condonation of delay: The tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter should be discouraged. The notion that the ITAT should always condone the delay should not be promoted. For mistake of lawyer to serve as valid consideration for the purpose of condonation of delay, the mistake must be such as may be made by a professional lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. "Useless advice" by a professional to not file appeal and to instead file a Cross Objection if Revenue filed the appeal cannot help the assessee because there was always going to be a chance that Revenue might not file appeal. Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide (all judgements considered)
Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20996 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 253(3)
-
Validity of directions made by ITAT to make assessments Harnarayan Bhagat and his three sons in the new status of Individuals / HUFs after holding that the earlier assessments made in the status of HUF / Individuals were not correct. Shri Harnarayan Bhagat was assessed in the status of HUF as Karta in respect of the business carried on in the name of Shri Radhakishan Balkishan.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II VERSUS SHRI HARNARAYAN BHAGAT (HUF), M/S. GAURI SHANKAR, SHRI SHESH NARAYAN BHAGAT, SHRI HARNARAYAN BHAGAT, KHIRKIYA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20995 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82039&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.