-
India Poland DTAA - Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to establish that the non resident payee has any fixed place of business PE in India. In that view of the matter, the income ceases to be taxable in India.
M/S. INFOSYS BPO LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1 (1), BANGALORE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27854 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94281&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case of the limited scrutiny assessment the AO could not have travelled beyond such scope to enquire about TDS details which was not the subject-matter of such limited scrutiny. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
TRIO TREND EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS PCIT-2, KOLKATA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27853 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once such seizure proceedings are undertaken by the officials of the Department under authorisation, they are not obliged to furnish any document to any public servant in respect of such matters relating to the assessee against whom search and seizure is taken up.
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), PR. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SRI K. GOVINDARAJ, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27852 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86050&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The incremental leave encashment liability was contingent in nature and has not crystallised into actual liability and will not be allowed as deduction.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA VERSUS EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27851 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86051&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - VAT refund given to incentivize industrialisation and employment generation is capital receipt not liable to tax.
Uflex Limited Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27850 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Revenue submits Report on appropriate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) over non-release of refund by CPC so that orders passed by the AOs are given effect to within appropriate time frame.
Intertek India Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27849 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - The matter over TDS dispute on year-end ad hoc provisions has to be analysed having regard to, whether income has accrued to the payees to deduct tax at source.
Volvo India Pvt. Ltd Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27848 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
ITAT - The issue of warrants is duly supported by the offer letter and allotment letter issued by the assessee. The share warrants were issued in compliance with the requirements of the Companies Act as well as SEBI Guidelines. Deletes addition u/s 68
Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27847 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
ITAT - Admissions or confessions made during survey did not carry any evidentiary value and additions can be made based on evidence only.
Legend Developers & Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27846 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
For calculation of Capital gain on sale of land as Capital Asset (land) u/s 2(14), shortest road route is to be considered
M/S GANGA NURSING HOME VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, ALLAHABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27776 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94206&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT has resorted to the revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act in a mechanical manner and has not been pointed out as to what error has been committed by the AO in accepting the explanation/evidences so furnished by the assessee in the process of verifying the nature of transactions.
CHANDRAVADAN DESAI VERSUS THE PCIT-9 KOLKATA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27623 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For the purpose of benchmarking of power transferred from eligible unit to non eligible unit assessee can only claim internal cup when it also sales power to SEB.
DCM SHRIRAM LTD. VERSUS ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE – 3, NEW DELHI.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27622 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93977&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee obtained and submitted a report from a merchant banker who is equally qualified to issue such valuation report under Rule 11UA(2) and the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) continues to remain inapplicable and thus, the order passed by the Assessing officer cannot be held as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which is an essential condition for invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263
VINAYAKA MICRONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27621 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
(i) The assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act on the sale of land, as the assessee was holding more than one residential unit. (ii) Assuming the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, then it was the duty of the revenue to provide the rightful claim of the assessee which is available under the provisions of law but the same was not claimed by the assessee under the wrong believe. As such, the Revenue cannot take the benefit of the ignorance of the assessee rather it was duty-bound to extend the benefit available to the assessee under the provisions of law.
SANJAY SURENDRABHAI GOR VERSUS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3 (2) AHMEDABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27620 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93966&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As both the issues in question on the basis of which the Pr.CIT had assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 had been considered and decided in appeal by the CIT(A), therefore, the Pr.CIT was clearly divested of his jurisdiction to have exercised the revisional jurisdiction vested with him u/s 263 as regards the said issues.
SHRI NITIN KUMAR DIDWANIA VERSUS PR. CIT- (CENTRAL) -3, MUMBAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27619 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93970&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The words 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meanings and cannot be used synonymously for computing deduction u/s 35D as such cost of acquiring 100% stake in companies cannot be treated as cost of the project for the purpose of determining deduction u/s 35D.
Subex Ltd Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27618 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 35D
-
ITAT - The AO recommending a revision u/s 263 to the CIT has no statutory sanction and is a course of action unknown to the law
Alfa Laval Lund AB Vs CIT(IT/TP)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27617 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
The scope and ambit of section 153A of the Act is to restrict to only incriminating material in case of unabated years. Since the assessment for the year under consideration is an unabated one which is undisputed and that we find no existence of any such incriminating material which is the pre-requisite to make assessment u/s.153A, the consequent additions made by the Revenue are without jurisdiction and will not survive
DY. CIT – CENTRAL CIRCLE -7 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27616 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92936&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The notices served through Speed Post and affixture were at the address as per PAN Database and, therefore, tantamounted to valid service, is of no assistance to the Revenue since admittedly the PAN Database also contains the residential address of the assessee and no attempt at all was made by the Revenue to service the notice at the residential address when the notice could not be served at the office address. The assessment framed u/s147, is without jurisdiction and, hence void abinitio.
SH. ANIL KUMAR VERSUS THE I.T.O., WARD-4, PATIALA.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27615 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92940&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if Tribunal refuses to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 508 days has to be condoned.
EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), BENGALURU
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27614 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92941&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.