-
Interest on late payment of Service Tax is not penal in nature. Since, it is compensatory in nature, it is eligible for deduction u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-12 (1) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28330 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95481&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provision of TDS provisions cannot applicable where there is no claim of expenditure made by the assessee.
M/S ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) / (OSD) LTU, BANGALORE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28329 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95482&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No additional surcharge and cess is to be applied over the 10% rate as prescribed under the DTAA.
Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28328 (HC-DELHI)
-
Interest on income tax refund is not effectively connected with the PE either on the basis of asset-test or activity-test. Hence, it is taxable as per the provisions in the Para No. 2 of Article XI of Indo-US DTAA.
Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd Vs DCIT (Intl. Taxation)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28327 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Lenders are regular tax assessees and have given the loan through account payee cheques and have confirmed the transaction then the liability of the assessee of explaining the genuineness of the transaction stands discharged and the addition cannot be made on mere suspicion.
ACIT, CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL VERSUS OM CONSTRUCTION, BHOPAL, M/S. SAINATH BUILDERS AND COLONISERS, BHOPAL
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28326 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95432&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No prudent businessman will give full money to the seller, if the property being purchased is in dispute.
NILESH MAHENDRA KOTHARI VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (2) , NAGPUR
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28325 (ITAT-NAGPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95435&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any infirmity with the finding of the CIT(A) and therefore, the ground of the Revenue appeal is failed and dismissed.
A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (3) , AHMEDABAD. VERSUS SHRI PRAVIN VIRCHAND SHAH
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28324 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95439&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Losses, other than capital losses, which arise out of and are incidental to the business of assessee must be necessarily deducted in the ascertainment of profits of the business u/s. 28 of the Act.
ACIT, CIRCLE-11 (2) NEW DELHI VERSUS HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28323 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95440&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are unable to approve the computation of capital gain made by the AO in AY 2011-12 also. Accordingly, the computation of capital gain made by the assessee in AY 2011-12 is upheld.
M/S. GODHA REALTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (2) BENGALURU
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28322 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95446&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Loss arising on restatement of outstanding liabilities is on revenue items and the same is allowable as deduction.
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3 (1) (2) , BENGALURU.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28321 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95447&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue is not entitled to change the method of valuation of shares.
M/s. Fortigo Network Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28320 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
The expenditure on legal, professional, travelling and boarding expenses will be considered as allowable expenses and it is not open to the Revenue to dictate what expenditure the assessee should incur and under what circumstances.
M/s. Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28319 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37(1)
-
The fact that bills were raised in the subsequent year did not change the character of expenditure but only the timing to record the bills.
M/s Aricia Construction Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28318 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Discount premium should be claimed evenly over the vesting period and in the instant case the entire discount had to be claimed as expenditure in the year of vesting.
Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28317 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The provisions of Section 50C can be applied in the year in which provisions of Section 45, 48 read with Section 2 (47) of the act are triggered and as the given sections are not triggered in AY 2005-06, but in AY 2004-05, the provisions of Section 50C for AY 2005-06 cannot be invoked.
Standard Chartered Bank Crescenzo Vs The Dy. Director of Incometax (International Taxation)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28316 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 50C
-
CIT(E) will admit all evidences/explanations filed by the assessee in its defense, and then decide on the application of the assessee for registration u/s. 12AA on merits in accordance with law.
THE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, LUCKNOW
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28315 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95383&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A debit balance in an account can either be reflected in the profit and loss account as expense or as an asset in the balance sheet. It cannot be reflected in both the financial statements at the same time.
R.S. STEEL MANUFACTURERS VERSUS THE ACIT, KHEDA CIRCLE NADIAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28314 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95385&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has not furnished any certificate from the Auditor as there was any error or mistake in his audit report. Therefore, in the absence of such certificate by the Tax Auditor, we do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of the authorities.
BINDRA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD., C/O-SSAR AND ASSOCIATES, CA VERSUS ITO, WARD-5 (1) , NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28313 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95389&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the investments in the FDRs were not made during the year under consideration, the question of taxing the same alleging it as unexplained cash credit does not arise and hence, based on this factual position we delete the addition.
ABDULAZIZ ABDUL RASHID SHAIKH VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-5 (1) , SURAT.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28312 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95391&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because claim of assessee was not accepted that by itself would not attract penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TRICHY. VERSUS M/S. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD., DALMIAPURAM
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28311 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95393&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.