-
It cannot be said that there was no full and true disclosure at the end of the assessee of the material facts. In such circumstances, it could be said that there was no tangible material with the Assessing Officer for the purpose of reopening the assessment except the change of opinion that the deductions could not have been claimed and allowed under Sections 53(b) and 54(1)(i) of the Act.
ARUN MUNSHAW HUF VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20954 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81993&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, provided the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VERSUS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “B” AND ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20953 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81994&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Following the amendment, it is now a statutory requirement that the Assessing Officer has to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before directing the assessee to get the accounts audited under the said provision. Reverting back to Sahara India Supreme Court held that special audit is more or less in the nature of an investigation and in some cases, may even turn out to be stigmatic.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS VILSON PARTICLE BOARD INDUSTRIES LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20952 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81996&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the petitioner has, no doubt obtained a PAN from the Assessing Officer at Madurai, wherein the dress of the assessee is stated to be in Madurai. However, no assessments have been completed by the officials at Madurai, till date. For AY 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 the petitioner has filed returns of income electronically, stipulating his jurisdictional officer as the Income tax officer, Shimoga, Karnataka.
ABDUL AZEEZ HAROON VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MADURAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20951 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81987&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore for purposes of according sanction to a scheme of amalgamation of a sick industrial undertaking with any other company under Section 18 of the said Act, the BIFR has to be satisfied that the amalgamating company is not financially viable, which is the effect of Section 3(o) of the said Act, and that the amalgamation is necessary or expedient in the public interest, which is the effect of Sections 17 and 18 of the said Act read together.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II COIMBATORE. VERSUS M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20950 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81989&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Agreement between the assessee and its customers is for providing hosting and other ancillary services to the customers and not for the use of leasing any equipment. The data centre and the infrastructure therein used to provide these serves belongs to the assessee. The customers are not having physical control or possession over the servers and right to operate and manage this infrastructure/servers vest solely with the assessee.
RACKSPACE VERSUS DCIT, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -4 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20949 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81635&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is nothing contrary on record to show that the assessee has complied with the requirements of the learned Assessing Officer in the exercise of forming satisfaction as to the identity and the creditworthiness of the share applicants or the genuineness of the transaction.
M/S. PAR EXCELLENCE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20948 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81657&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the order passed u/s 143(3) in the case of MGFD, the amount of ₹ 57 crores has been accepted by the AO as the share of revenue @ 60% of the hotel project at Jaipur. We, therefore, find merit in the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the AO is not discarding the contribution of MGFD towards the completion of the project which is for the financing, implementation, providing brand name and other technical assistance for completion of the project.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI. VERSUS VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20947 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81643&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no infirmity in such tax audit report as observed by the AO. As such the income declared by the assessee in its income tax return has been accepted without pointing any variation. Moreover the purpose of tax audit was to ensure that the information furnished by the assessee in the income tax return are correct so as to save the time of the income tax officer is in carrying out routine verifications of the purchases and sales and other details shown in the financial statements.
SHREENATHJI REALTY BANSI BUNGALOWS ATLADARA, VADODARA, NILKANTH DEVELOPERS VACHNAMRUT RESIDENCY ATLADARA, VADODARA VERSUS THE DY. CIT CIRCLE-1 (2) BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20946 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81648&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The jurisdictional HC had already dismissed employees' writ based on SC decision in Arun Kumar Vs Ors wherein such free or concessional supply of electricity was held to be perquisite. It is therefore not open for it to contend that the same is a perquisite on which tax is payable by the employees, saving it from being charged under FBT on the said benefit. That is, it cannot take refuge in its own default in pleading for a saving from another liability, so that one becomes an excuse for the other.
Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20945 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
-
As decided in own case CIT(A) was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer has erred in categorizing DOC as scrap within the meaning of Explanation to Section 206C. Regarding the raw cotton being treated as scrap we find raw cotton is only a part of raw material which is of lower quality (lower count cotton) from which the thin yarn cannot be manufactured such thick quality cotton was separated at the initial warehousing stage and sold off to other yarn manufacturers including that for export.
DCIT, TDS CIRCLE AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORT LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20944 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81614&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As earlier that the assessee has sold agricultural land located within the Municipal limits to a person named Sri Rajesh Runawal, for a consideration of ₹ 13.05 lakhs. However, since Shri Rajesh Runawal agreed before the ADIT(Inv.)Belgaum that the sale consideration was 34.60 lakhs, the assessee also declared the sale consideration at ₹ 34.60 lakhs, as noticed earlier.
SHRI LATE GURAPPA P GAWALI, REP. BY LEGAL HEIR GURAPPA PARASAPPA GAWALI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIJAPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20943 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81615&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) had rightly upheld the decision of the AO by holding that taking a corporate membership in a private club cannot be linked to the objects of the trust /society in any manner. The trust exists for some other purposes and gets benefits under the tax laws for genuine pursuit of its objects towards good of the society and not for the business like expansion through entertainment for guests in private club and networking etc. for which normally businesses use such memberships.
THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE – JAIPUR VERSUS MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 521
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20942 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81619&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is true that assessee has not shown the business receipts and income under the head business income but this reason alone cannot preclude to assessee for claiming incidental expenses incurred for carrying out business. Though, assessee has declared 6.28% net profit rate on the transport business on the gross receipt of Rs 19,88,592/-.
SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ITO VIDISHA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20941 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81622&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not correct to state that the Tribunal has given a finding in paragraph-7 of its order that the Assessee filed details of TDS statement filing dates before CIT(A). The Tribunal has only stated in paragraph-7 that it was submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A) that it had filed TDS for the relevant FYs as per details given below.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) , BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20940 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81625&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The present case, the A.O. has applied the provisions of section 50C for the computation of additional capital gain on the basis of the value adopted for registration of the said property. Apart from the stamp duty valuation, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has received extra sale consideration over and above the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed.
SRI. SALEH MOHD. SALIM VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2) (1) BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20939 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81629&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that on the aspect of technical issue i.e. non-recording of objective satisfaction by the ld. AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee, we find that in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. Had categorically held that in the absence of said satisfaction as contemplated in Section 14A(2) / 14A(3) of the Act read with rule 8D(1) of the rules, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could be made by adopting the computation mechanism provided in rule 8D(2) of the rules.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI AND JT. CIT (OSD) -2 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20938 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81608&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the assessee was holding more than 10% of the shares in both the companies, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would come into play. However, the section further provides that the dividend does not include any advances or loan made to a share holder by the Company in the ordinary course of business where lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the Company.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 VERSUS MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20937 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81952&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 28(iv) of the IT Act does not apply on the present case since the receipts of ₹ 57,74,064/- are in the nature of cash or money. Section 41(1) of the IT Act does not apply since waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SICOM LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20936 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81959&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of discharge of burden by the assessee, burden shifted to the revenue; but revenue could not prove or bring any material to impeach the source of the credit. Though Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel, has pointed out that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee had discharged the onus which was on him to explain the three requirements, as noted above.
MR. GAURAV TRIYUGI SINGH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-24 (3) (1), MUMBAI-51
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20935 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81965&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.