-
The primary or dominant object of the trust satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2 (15) of the Act. Even if some ancillary or incidental objects are not charitable in nature, the institution would still be considered as a charitable organisation. Merely because some facilities were beyond its main object, that by itself would not deprive the institution of the benefits of a charitable organisation.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – EXEMPTION VERSUS ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20914 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81935&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is nothing extraordinarily unusual or abnormal in the fact of retaining money for sometime before gifting it even if to the son, since there are various considerations which are involved in making a gift and it is up to the donor to decide when and to whom to make the gift. In the present case the period of retention of the amount for eight months, we find, is not unusually large so as to doubt the genuineness of the same.
KULDEEP SINGH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20913 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81570&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Extrapolation made by learned CIT(A) that the Trust shall not be entitled for deduction u/s. 24 of the Act in computation of income from house property is totally unsustainable in law. As a matter of fact, the proposition that income has to be computed as per provisions of the Act even in the case of Trust was approved in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) wherein capital expenditure for acquiring asset which was already shown as application of income was held to be eligible for depreciation which was denied by the Revenue.
SHANTARAM BHAT CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) -1, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20912 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81571&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the services rendered by the assessee under agreement comes under first limb of FTS, then the assesee is not correct in moving to the second limb of FTS, as per the above definition to argue that the services do not make available any technical knowledge, skill, process etc.
Aktiebolaget SKF Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20911 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The primary or dominant object of the trust satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2 (15) of the Act. Even if some ancillary or incidental objects are not charitable in nature, the institution would still be considered as a charitable organisation.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20910 (HC-DELHI)
-
The AO had ignored the addendum agreement as the same was not registered. Whereas it is also a factual position that even the agreement dated December 31, 2010 was also an unregistered document, therefore, in such a situation, the Assessing Officer was not expected to adopt the pick and choose method. Even otherwise, the Revenue failed to demonstrate as to how the addendum dated April 12, 2011 was compulsory registerable.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS DR. ITM LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20909 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81538&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no averment or allegation that the assessee-company does not fulfil the condition as required under section 80G(5). So far as the contention of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) that the company has been formed to fulfil the corporate social responsibility of the another company, the issue has been settled by the co-ordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Nanak Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. CIT(E).
SABTERA FOUNDATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20908 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81539&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has entered into 2 separate agreement, both dated 31/12/1996, the copies of which have been placed on record. By virtue of agreement for purchase of software business undertaking, the assessee has acquired the undertaking for a consideration of ₹ 25 Crores. There is another agreement titled as non-compete agreement which restrict FIL to compete with assessee in development and sale of software for exports market for a period of 10 years.
ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS INDIA LTD) VERSUS ACIT (INV.) CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20907 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81541&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold in next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non resident buyer and further there is no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act is hereby deleted.
M/S CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD 6 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20906 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81544&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has claimed exempt LTCG by trading in shares of LTL. The details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have not been examined and inquired into by the AO. This is evident from the assessment order produced above and also from the documents available on record. One cannot miss the proposition that assessment made without inquiry is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
MOTILAL SALECHA HUF VERSUS PR. CIT-31, ROOM NO. 301, C-13 PRATYAKSHAKAR BAHVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20905 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the letter Dated 05.01.2016 was qualified and subject to documents to be supplied by the A.O, it is clear that admission of the assessee in the said letter was not correct and true because it was not based on any evidence or material if found during search. Thus, the Board Circular Dated 10.03.2003 (supra) would apply to the case of the assessee that the Department should concentrate of collection of evidence of income and should not based on addition merely on the basis of confession obtained from assessee through the letter Dated 05.01.2016.
SHRI TARACHAND KHATRI, RAMNATH BUILDING, OPP. BHAWARTAL, JABALPUR. VERSUS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20904 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81549&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Arora had relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Khan which has already been distinguished by this Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer. In view of this law laid down by this Court, substantial questions of law as framed do not arise.
Sanjay L. Sonavane Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20903 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 54F
-
Working in the late hours and passing this kind of cryptic order will not only affect the health of the officer but also prejudice the interest of the assessee. Though it may not be wrong to continue the hearing after office hours occasionally, hearing the appeals and making the tax practitioners, advocates and Chartered Accountants to wait till 9 PM to 10 PM on daily basis has to be avoided, and thus remits issue back to CIT(A) for re-examination.
Shri Shanmugam Senthilkumar Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20902 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Since sale of shares at face value was by mutual understanding and by consent of all directors because Amit Indubhushan Bakshi was instrumental in getting the investor who contributed allot for benefit of company. We do not find any illegality in transfer of shares at face value i.e. Rs. 10 per share.
Shri Rakesh Bhikhabhai Shah Vs Pr. CIT-1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Where the assessee has followed mercantile system of accounting and distributing the liability to pay to sales tax and not making provision in its books of accounts particularly when the demand raised on the basis of the sales made during the accounting year the assessee entitled to deduct the amount of sales tax on the basis of the liability incurred and even in the absence of entries in the books of accounts, the same is admissible.
GUJARAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. – GSEGL VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHNAGAR RANGE, GANDHINAGAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20900 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81514&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation u/s.200A of the Act became an appealable order u/s.246A of the Act, only consequent to amendment by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. Prior to the said date an intimation u/s.200A was not appealable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mst. Katiji, has explained the principles that need to be kept in mind while considering an application for condonation of delay.
MS. SEENA DEEPAK VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. UP.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20899 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81515&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Only an acceptance of it’s liability to deduct and deposit income-tax on the perquisite to its’ employees and, rather, doing so, would operate to save the assessee of it’s liability to tax u/s.115WA(1). The facts of the case are admitted and borne out by the record, being admittedly the same as for AY 2006-07, as is the position of law for both the years. The assessee does not admittedly accept its’ liability to deduct and deposit tax at source on the said benefit.
MADHYA PRADESH POORV KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., JABALPUR VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20898 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81517&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the assesee ex-parte for non appearance of the assessee. The contentions of the assessee is that there is an error in the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as in disposing of penalty appeals, when the quantum appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A).
BHARAT R. RUIA (HUF) VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-47 MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20897 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81518&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The CIT(A) has also gone through the case and restricted the bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% of ₹ 1,97,383/- i.e.24,672/-. However, at the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has no objection to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Anyhow, on seeing the facts and circumstances, it seems quite justifiable to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. We nowhere found any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) in question.
ACIT-27 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS RASHMIKANT V. SHAH 310/12, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20896 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81519&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the respondent assessee has disclosed additional income of ₹ 12 Crore during the course of settlement, it cannot be said that Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1961. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commission, it is apparent that the application submitted by the respondent has been dealt with as per the provisions of section 245C and 245D of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX SURAT 1 VERSUS SHANKARLAL NEBHUMAL UTTAMCHANDANI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20895 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81916&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.