-
Payment made by Indian subsidiary to assessee (the Netherlands company) for rendering management services is not FTS under Article 12 of India-Netherlands DTAA since 'managerial services' are outside purview of FTS definition under DTAA.
Hyva Holding B.V Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19249 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
For claiming higher rate of depreciation of 80%, assessee has to prove that the STB's are energy saving devices being electrical equipment.
Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19248 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
In order to obtain registration u/s. 12AA only objects of the assessee trust is to be examined, therefore simply non-maintenance of separate books cannot be a ground for rejection of registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
Barnabas Hospital Vs CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19247 (ITAT-RANCHI) · Section 12AA
-
No infirmity does emerge from the determining of the FMV of the shares by the assessee company as per the recognized method of valuation i.e 'discounted cash flow method'.
M/s Enterprises Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19246 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Deduction u/s 80IB or for that matter any other section under chapter VI-A of the Act is not allowed adjustment.
Gee City Builders P.Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19245 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 80IB(10)
-
With a view to overcome the same, clause (i) was added to Explanation 1 to Section 115JB with retrospective effect from AY 2001-02 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 which provided that the Book Profits should be increased by the amount set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset.
Bobcards Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19244 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 80P(4): The AO is not obliged to grant deduction by merely looking at the certificate of registration issued by the competent authority under the Co-op Societies Act. Instead, he has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not. Chirakkal 384 ITR 490 (Ker) overruled. Antony Pattukulangara 2012 (3) KHC 726 & Perinthalmanna 363 ITR 268 (Ker) approved. Citizen Co-operative Society 397 ITR 1 (SC) followed)
The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19238 (HC-KERALA) · Section 80P(4)
-
The ICAI has jurisdiction to examine any conduct (including alleged sexual harassment) by a CA that would tend to bring disrepute to the profession or the Institute. The fact that the matter is pending trial before the Criminal Court is not relevant because the standards of proof are different. The ICAI may or may not await the outcome of the trial depending on the circumstances (Gurvinder Singh 259 TM 311 (SC) followed)
Lalit Agrawal vs. ICAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19237 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No addition u/s 68 as prima facie the case of the assessee shows that there is double taxation, once the source of income and secondly the application of income.
M/S SURYA PROCESSED FOOD PVT. LTD., M/S SURYA AGROTECH INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19236 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75082&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Specified persons u/s 13(3) have devoted full time to the educational institution to the best of their knowledge, ability and experience and AO did not bring any evidence on record as to how the salary paid to these persons with reference to their qualification was excessive or unreasonable, therefore no addition.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19235 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - TP Adjustment - The comparison has to be region /country specific, which in this case, the TPO has completely ignored.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 VERSUS M/S AUDCO INDIA LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19234 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78618&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Assessment order indicate that the AO has made enquiry on various issues as such order cannot be said to be “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue".
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR VERSUS M/S HARI OM STONES, C/O-SHRI OM PRAKASH SHARMA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19233 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78621&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transaction was not clear and even the lenders summoned by the AO had not submitted their income tax returns. Therefore, the addition u/s 68 was sustained.
SATLUJ SHIKSHA SAMITI, BERLI KALAN, REWARI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19232 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78622&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Allotment of immovable property by assessee-firm to retiring partners towards their share in partnership on retirement is not transfer u/s 45(4).
National Company Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19231 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 45(4)
-
ITAT - Payment of incentive bonus was dependent upon the performance of employees and also it was not a case of statutory bonus payment under the Payment of Bonus Act, hence rules that Sec.43B was inapplicable.
Harita NTI Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19230 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 43B
-
ITAT - (i) Taxability of an amount received by a partner on retirement from firm explained. (ii) Excess payment to a retiring partner over and above the sum standing to the credit of his capital account at the time of retirement should be treated as capital gains.
Savitri Kadur Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19229 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
HC - The assessee is the purchaser and not the seller and hence, the valuation adopted by the Stamp authority could not have been made the basis from coming to the conclusion that there is unexplained investment. u/s 69B.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 VERSUS DHARMAJA INFRASTRUCTURE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19228 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78609&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Tribunal was required either to accept the reasons and dismiss the appeal or not to accept it. If it did not accept the reasons, it was obliged to give its own reasons and dispose of the appeal.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VERSUS RAMA PRASAD GOENKA FOOTBALL ACADEMY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19227 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78611&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Upheld the ITAT's order invoking Section 62(2) r.w.Sec. 61(1) which would apply only to the Revocable Transfer of the funds made for a period which is not specified and these above circumstances, it would be taxable in the hands of the Transferor/beneficiaries and not in the hands of the Trust.
Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19223 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - ITAT erred in following jurisdictional HC full bench ruling on Sec. 234B interest levy.
GIL Mauritius Holding Ltd Vs Director of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19216 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section 234B
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.