-
As the aforesaid final possession letter was never filed by the assessee before the A.O, therefore, the said verification was indispensably required to be done on his part in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration, we uphold his view.
MR. SANJAY BADANI C/O JAYESH SANGHRAJKA & CO LLP VERSUS ACIT-10 (3) [NOW KNOWN AS 15 (2) (1) ] AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20009 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77422&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that the investment was funded using a portion of an interest-free shareholder loan and share capital does not affect the appellant's status as the beneficial owner of interest income, as the entire interest income was the sole property of the appellant., cites OECD 2017 Model Convention to appreciate the meaning of beneficial owner. The transaction between the appellant- assessee and ABPL cannot be considered a mere back-to-back transaction lacking economic substance.
Golden Bella Holdings Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20008 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee was granted exemption u/s. 11 upto preceding AY wherein AO had accepted that assessee's activities fell within the expression 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' u/s. 2(15), however, Revenue had denied exemption during subject AY in view of introduction of the proviso to Sec. 2(15). Considering the objects for which the assessee is set up and manner in which funds generated are utilized, there is no doubt that there is no profit motive in carrying out the activity of the assesse. Therefore, revenue's pleea is rejected and assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20007 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
The Tribunal is advised to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations in order to save time and effort.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3-Mumbai Vs M/s. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20006 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
There cannot be addition made on account of statements recorded under survey proceedings conducted u/s 133A of the Act and therefore the addition made in the present case in the hands of assessee is not maintainable only for the reason that the addition was made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is solely based on the statement of Shri Ajoy Kr. Das which was alleged to have been confirmed by the assessee during the course of survey.
ROHITASWA DAS VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-46, KOLKATA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20005 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77407&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Coordinate bench in case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. JP greens Ltd, on identical facts and circumstances considered golf course as plant and depreciation at the rate of 25% was allowed holding that assessing officer himself has allowed depreciation at that rate in past in that particular case.
LANDBASE INDIA LTD VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4 (1) , NEW DELHI, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-15 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20004 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77406&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in assessee's own case in the present case it cannot be disputed that the net consequence of the disallowance of the employer's and the employees' contribution is that the business profits have to that extent been enhanced. There was as we have already noted, an add back by the Assessing Officer to the Income. All profits of the unit of the assessee have been derived from manufacturing activity. The salaries paid by the assessee, It has not been disputed, relate to the manufacturing activity.
ITO-15 (1) (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S CREDIT SUISSE BUSINESS ANALYTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20003 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77401&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The entire scheme of the Act relating to the relevant section i.e. section 80IC of the Act, and arrived at the conclusion that the definition of the initial assessment year contained in clause (v) of sub- section(8) of section 80IC of the Act can lead to a situation where there can be more than one initial assessment year within the said period of ten years.
M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20002 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77400&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are unable to appreciate as to how the take over has been regarded as fuzzy or not in advancement of the objects of the society. The continuing affiliation with CBSE, not doubted, and qua which we have reasonably satisfied ourselves, including the no takeover of any land (immovable property), put pays all doubts with regard to the acquisition of a running school or, rather, adoption of a running school.
GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHANDIGARH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20001 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77399&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Proceedings under section 148 cannot be initiated for verification of the sources of investment. Such an action of the AO in respect of the case on hand cannot be approved in law and is therefore, quashed. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by Assessing officer so as to form requisite satisfaction that investment in property is income of current year and which has escaped assessment.
SHRI. RAJ SINGH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3 (3) , MATHURA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20000 (ITAT-AGRA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77398&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has reserved its right to challenge the existence of the PE at various forums and in case of other associated concerns also for relevant year or any other assessment year. Therefore there is no clear-cut admission of the assessee of the existence of the PE before the learned dispute resolution panel.
LG Electronics Inc. Korea Vs DCIT(International Taxation)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19999 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The alleged contribution to superannuation fund in Australia represents perquisite u/s 17(2)(v) and hence would be taxable in the hands of assessee, who is an Australian national, seconded by Amway Australia to Amway India under a contract agreement for 3 years.
William Scott Pinckney Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19998 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
MAT credit available on account of excess payment of tax in the earlier years is that of the assessee itself and not of the demerged company. All the taxes paid / payable before the appointed date shall be on account of assessee and those paid / payable after the appointed date will be to the account of TCS Ltd.
TCS E-Serve International Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19997 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The provisions of Sec. 50C cannot be applied to the case of deeming the value of consideration like cases covered by provisions of 45(3). Provisions of Sec.45(3) and 50C operate in different spheres and are not overlapping. The special provisions [u/s. 45(3)] prevail over general provisions.
Shri Sarrangan Ashok Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19996 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 50C
-
We have perused the relevant record including the returns of income filed under section 139(1) as well as returns of income filed u/s 153A and noted that the assessee has claimed the respective amounts of losses for these three assessment years in the returns of income under section 139(1) and the same amounts were also claimed in the returns of income filed u/s 153A though in the acknowledgements generated by the departmental system for the returns of income filed under section 153A the amount of loss has not been shown.
M/S. SHREE KRISHNA VATIKA BUILDMART PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19995 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77389&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there is no provision of condonation of delay for filing of the Miscellaneous Application, then the Miscellaneous Application filed belatedly is not maintainable being barred by limitation provided under section 254(2) of the Act and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR VERSUS M/S GILLETTE INDIA LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19994 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77390&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 80IB(13) imports sec. 80IA(5) and (7) to (12) to be applicable to the eligible business carried out by the eligible undertaking in question. We notice in this backdrop that the clinching legislative’s expression 80IA(7) is accounts of the undertaking than a complete set off separate books of account. And sec. 80HH(5), 80I(7), sec. 80IA(7) as well as sec. 80IB(13) also use the very statutory expression accounts of the undertaking.
ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ASSAM VERSUS OIL INDIA LTD., DULIAJAN DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19993 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77394&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee, has consistently pleaded that the payment was made in cash for purchasing tickets of cricket match for its staff/customers and for providing food to them during cricket match and that the payment was made to different vendors at the spot where the cricket match was conducted for buying food items. But no evidence has been filed to substantiate the same. Therefore the fact remains that the assessee has incurred expenditure in cash exceeding ₹ 20,000/-, thus violating the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act calling for disallowance of the same.
M/S KAPSONS FASHION PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2 (1), CHANDIGARH.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19992 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77395&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the assessee has offered income u/s.44AD he should separately shown in the computation of income that the profit has been earned from civil contract and it has been offered for taxation under the presumptive Section 44AD. The assessee has also not produced any details before us of the relevant part of the Income Tax Return in which there is a separate columns for the income offered u/s.44AD.
SANJEEV SABLOK VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (4), JAMSHEDPUR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19991 (ITAT-RANCHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77396&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue derived from land is not deemed to have been included in any income arising from transfer of land. The other interpretation given by the assessee, that even sale constitutes revenue cannot be pressed into service because the transaction of sale results in destruction of a revenue or rent generating asset.
KRISH HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (3), ALWAR
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19990 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79777&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.