-
Provisions of Section 234C does not apply to any shortfall in the payment of the tax due on the returned income if such shortfall is on account of underestimation of the amount of capital gain.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs IFCI LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23166 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 234C
-
Vide the provisions to Section 244A(1)(a), the legislature clearly laid down that no interest is allowable in case the refund arise out of the prepaid taxes such as TCS/TDS/Advance Tax is less than 10% of the tax.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23158 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 244A(1)(a)
-
Even if a process is fully automated and there is no human intervention, still the particular activity or technical analysis may fall into the definition of technical services.
Havells India Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23139 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Merely on the ground that trademark was earlier i.e. prior to present assessment year not registered cannot be the ground for making disallowance.
Imtiara Consultants P. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23122 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The whereabouts of the investor companies were within the knowledge of the assessee. When such entities were not to be found in the addresses furnished by the assessee, it was incumbent upon the assessee to produce them before the AO to prove their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Burden stands shifted to the assessee.
KNS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23112 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The assessee was entitled to depreciation on goodwill.
Geodis Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23097 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The said amount was paid towards advertisement and publicity enabling the assessee company to advertise its real estate projects by way of display boards in all the matches at Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium. This obviously improved the performance of the functioning of the assessee company and hence, the same would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23086 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is a settled law that upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, the amalgamating Company ceased to exist in the eyes of law & it cannot be regarded as a person in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act and consequently no assessment proceeding can be initiated or an assessment order can be passed.
Duke Arnics Electronics Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23085 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The AO was not justified in disallowing the expenses by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act and thus, the order of AO is being set aside.
Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23073 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
While interpreting the provisions of Section 10(38) of the income tax act we do not find that if the source is excluded or included it will give any other result.
Mr. Nikhil Sawhney Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23067 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The draft order framed u/s 144C(1) of the Act is in the name of a non-existent company and accordingly, void ab initio, making all subsequent proceedings non- est.
BOEING India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23059 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 195
-
The impugned disallowance of credit of TDS under intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act suffered legal irregularity and cannot be sustained.
AWP ASSISTANCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23058 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 143(1)
-
The liability to pay the retirement benefit has arisen based on the demand raised by the NTPC following the direction of DPE guidelines. Therefore the liability is an ascertained liability that has been crystallized and discharged by the assessee during the year and the same could not be named as an uncertain provision.
DCIT Vs NTPC ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23056 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Limitation provided for passing order u/s 201(1) for subjects AY expired prior to amended Sec 201(3) coming into force and hence a right has been accrued in favour of the assesse.
HCL Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23011 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 201(1), 201(3)
-
As far as the payment to Honda motor Japan is concerned, the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2009- 10. Wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Herbalife. We note that Hon'ble High Court in the case of Herbalife (supra) has also considered the amendment in provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act by way of insertion of sub-clause(ia) w.e.f. 01/04/2005.
M/S. HONDA CARS INDIA LTD. VERSUS DCIT, LTU, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22991 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84175&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to find out the investments which have yielded dividend income and to take into the same for considering the average value of investment. So far as the interest expenditure for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A we find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that bank guarantee commission, interest on TDS, interest on service tax, interest on professional tax, interest paid to clients on advance brokerage, interest on clients' margins money, etc. cannot be considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-21 (1), CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22988 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84191&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Bank guarantee commission, interest on TDS/ service tax/ professional tax, interest paid to clients on advance brokerage, interest on clients' margins money, etc. cannot be considered for the purposes of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
Religare Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22985 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
Upward revaluation of long-term investments is not permitted under AS-13.
Hespera Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22971 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As in the present case the Assessee could not lead the required evidence before the lower authorities. We are of the view that the evidences which the assessee has filed now have a material bearing on the issue which is before us. We further find that assessee had also filed additional evidences before the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal for A.Y. 2011-12. The same were admitted and the matter was restored to the file of AO.
MOHD. GULZAR VERSUS ITO, WARD – 63 (3) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22964 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84130&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an admitted fact that though Explanation 5 has been inserted in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act but no amendment has been made to the definition of Royalty under DTAA and since the provisions of DTAA are beneficial to the assessee, then the said provisions would be applied.
NAGRAVISION S.A., C/O-ERNST & YOUNG LLP VERSUS THE ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , CIRCLE-2 (2) (2), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22956 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84118&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.