-
Since no powers u/s. 92CA have been bestowed on TPO to decide the situs of control and management of affairs. Therefore, it is the AO who has to come to a finding in this regard.
Sava Healthcare Ltd (earlier known as Anagha Pharma Pvt Ltd) vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19556 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Dismisses writ petition citing appeal remedy, orders status quo on Cognizant's fixed deposits.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19555 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 254: President/ Sr. VP of the ITAT should take appropriate steps and expedite hearing in old appeals. A tabular statement indicating the age of the old appeals as well as an action plan of the ITAT with respect to the likely time for their disposal, having regard to the priorities that ITAT may set in this regard, shall also be filed in court
Nokia Solutions And Networks Italia Spa vs. DDIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19554 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254
-
Income offered by the assessee through its joint declaration was neither represented by any assets found in the course of search nor represented by any entry made in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions found in the course of search and income voluntarily offered by the assessee did not come within the ambit and scope of the expression ‘undisclosed income’ as defined for the purposes of Section 271AAB.
CINESTAAN ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-6 (2), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19553 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76086&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Fees for Management services - Even if, we proceed with the assumption that the mark up of 5% is not at ALP, which should be as low as 1% or even less than that, still the difference arising on account of such mark-up going even up to 0% in a comparable uncontrolled situation, would be within +/-5% range, not requiring any transfer pricing adjustment.
INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19552 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76088&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee owns three flats and that since the assessee was the owner of more than one residential house as on the date of transfer of land, he was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.
JAGADISH PRABHAKAR DESHPANDE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUNE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19551 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76089&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The ld.CIT(A) reproduced grounds of appeal on page no.1 and 2, and thereafter reproduced submissions of the assessee upto page no.44. In other words, he has reproduced 40 pages of written submission given by the assessee, and thereafter concluded the finding in five-six lines. This order has been followed blindly in other years without any application of mind. Thus, it is a just non-speaking order at the end of the ld.CIT(A).
ATUL LIMITED VERSUS DCIT (OSD) , RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD. AND ACIT (OSD), RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD. VERSUS ATUL LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19550 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76091&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There had been no deliberate concealment nor there had been deliberate non disclosure and that the assessee disclosed the amount, which, according to the Department, should have been shown as a perquisite because the employer had treated it as a perquisite and deducted tax at source. Though the assessee offered an explanation, it was not found to be acceptable by the AO.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-IX VERSUS SHRI. RAMESWARA REDDY KUMMATHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19549 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78972&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
By crediting the enhanced value of the land, which belonged to the firm, to the current account of the partners of the firm and by treating it as loan from the partners in the accounts of the company, there was violation of the provisions contained in clauses (a) and (c) of the proviso to Section 47(xiii). Therefore, the aforesaid transaction amounts to transfer of a capital asset within the purview of Section 45 and the profits or gains obtained by the transfer of the asset by the firm to the company has to be treated as capital gains.
K.T.C. AUTOMOBILES VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1) , CALICUT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19548 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78973&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since ATM machines were nothing but computers as they dealt with the functions of decoding the information, processing the same and giving the output, therefore allows assessee's 60% depreciation claim on ATM machines.
Financial Software and Systems Private Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19547 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Merely because the transactions had taken place with the related parties, the same cannot be construed as a colorable device.
Apeejay Surrendra Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19546 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Deletes addition on account of reversal of unsecured loan u/s. 41(1) in absence of proof that the assessee has been allowed any deduction in respect of waiver of such liability in the past.
Medical Technologies Limited Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19545 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 41(1)
-
Since ejusdem generis is applied, therefore depreciation u/s. 32 on 'customer contracts' is allowed.
Compass Group (India) Support Services P. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19544 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 32
-
Capital gains addition u/s.45(4) with respect to revaluation of asset upon conversion of assessee-firm into a company is deleted by ITAT.
Vishal Engineering and Galvanizers Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19543 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 45(4)
-
CIT's exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 when assessment order passed by AO was void for AY 2010-11 is quashed.
Pioneer Distilleries Limited Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19542 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 263
-
Re-opening on Infosys based on subsequent year's assessment is quashed.
INFOSYS BPO LTD Vs THE ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19541 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
S. 254: Surprised that how, after so much of case laws on the issue and amendment of Rule 24 itself, the ld Members of the Tribunal, even now commit the folly of dismissing appeals for want of prosecution and for default of appearance on the part of the assessees. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution is not only illegal but also entails further litigation by compelling the assessee to move for setting aside the ex parte order. Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the cases on merits. Copy of this judgment may be sent to the President of the ITAT & Law Secretary in Ministry of Law and Justice so that the same may be brought to the notice of all Members of the ITAT and new appointees in at the time of their recruitment itself. The President may also get it circulated to all existing Members of the ITAT so that such orders resulting in serious miscarriage of justice should not be repeated by any Member of the Tribunal
Ritha Sabapathy vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19540 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 254
-
S. 92C/ Rule 10B: If the TPO is not satisfied with the assessee's method of benchmarking royalty payments, he should independently benchmark the ALP by adopting any one of the prescribed methods. He cannot determine The ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis. TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of royalty and not the CUP method. If an authority like the RBI or Commerce Ministry has approved the rate of royalty, it carries persuasive value that the rate is at ALP
ACIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19539 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92C
-
S. 276B TDS Prosecution: Mere delay in depositing TDS within the time limit prescribed in S. 200 & Rule 30 is an offense sufficient to attract s. 276B. The fact that the TDS has been deposited subsequently does not absolve the offense. The fact that penalty u/s 221 has not been levied is not relevant because there is an admitted delay in depositing TDS.
Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19538 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections 221, 276B
-
S. 56(2)(viib): The assessee has the option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the 'NAV Method'. The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. He also cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee and its investors. The ‘DCF Method’ is based on projections. The AO cannot fault the valuation on the basis that the real figures don't support the projections. Also, the fact that independent investors have invested in the start-up proves that the FMV as determined by the assessee is proper
Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19537 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.