-
In so far as the applicability of the scope/tax rate w.r.t. the remittance made to the non-residents is concerned, no fault can be found with the beneficial tax rate contained in the DTAAs.
Jyoti Limited Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26432 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 206AA
-
The power to rectify an order u/s 254(2) is extremely limited. It does not extend to correcting the errors of law or re-appreciating the factual findings.
Vrundavan Ginning And Oil Mill Vs ASST. REGISTRAR / PRESIDENT & 3 other(s)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26431 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 254(2)
-
Cess is not tax as covered u/s 40(a)(ii) and should be allowable as deduction in computing the income from business or profession.
UHDE India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26424 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Although payment made to said company is not covered under Article 14, but said payment is covered under Article 7 of DTAA between India and USA.
Sundaram Business Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26423 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
If the order so passed by the Revenue is adverse to the interests of the assessee, the same shall not be given effect to for four weeks, commencing from the date the said order is served.
BT (India) Private Limited Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26416 (HC-DELHI) · Section 195
-
Mere issuance of scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) cannot be the sole basis for withholding refund from the assessee.
Ingenico International India Pvt. Ltd Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26415 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 241A, 143(2)
-
S. 271AAB: Penalty u/s 271AAB can only be levied on "undisclosed income". The expression ‘undisclosed income’ is given a definite and specific meaning. It has not been described in an inclusive manner so as to enable the tax authorities to give a wider or elastic meaning. Species of income which is not specifically covered by the definition cannot be brought within its ambit. Such penal provisions are required to be interpreted in a strict, specific and restricted manner. Income declared by the assessee in the return of income or found or assessed by the AO in the assessment proceedings may be relevant for assessment of the income under section 68 /69 and other related provisions of the Act and also for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, if it does not fall within the four corners of the definition of “undisclosed income”, penalty u/s 271AAB cannot be levied
Shiv Bhagwan Gupta vs. ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26414 (ITAT-PATNA) · Section 271AAB
-
A notice issued u/s 142(1) requiring the assessee to furnish a return of income when the assessee had already earlier filed a return is not valid. Once a valid return of income was available on record, which was already processed issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to furnish fresh notice in itself is invalid making subsequently proceedings void ab initio. The assessment order has to be quashed for want of jurisdiction
Sajan Kumar Jain vs. DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26413 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 142(1)
-
In absence of PE or business connection in India, commission paid to non-resident agents was not liable to tax under the provision of the act.
GHCL Ltd Vs Dy. CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26402 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Merely because the assessee has taken advances from its sister concern to settle purchase consideration, it does not make the transaction a bogus transaction.
Panther Industrial Products Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26401 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency is allowable as business expenditure and coordinate bench ruling in Karnataka Trade Corporationwhere expenses incurred to perfect title of movable and immovable properties were allowed as business expenditure.
Maya Ventures Private Limited Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26394 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Payments made by the assessee was not royalty as defined under Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vi), and under the applicable DTAAs, giving rise to an income chargeable to tax in India and necessitating deduction of tax u/s 195.
Technicolor India Pvt Ltd Vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26393 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident computer software manufacturers / suppliers as consideration for the resale / use of computer software, is not payment of royalty for use of copyright in the computer software and the same is not liable to TDS u/s 195.
Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(2) (International Taxation)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26392 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 195
-
The contesting parties is directed to file written submission on or before March 26, 2021.
Sanfi Aventis Amerique Du Nord & Ors Vs THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26391 (SC)
-
It is settled principle of law that ITAT is empowered to rectify the mistakes apparent from record, however under the garb of rectification and not empowered to review its own order.
Tecnotree Convergence Ltd Vs ITO Ward-16(2)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26390 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 254(2)
-
Insertion of the expression even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee violates Article 14 of the Constitution and ruled that where delay in disposing appeal is not attributable to the assessee, ITAT has power to grant extension of stay beyond 365 days in deserving cases.
Pepsi Foods Ltd Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26389 (SC)
-
RoI filed before the due date u/s 139(1) is proper compliance under sub-rule (1A) of rule 5.
Jindal Steel Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26388 (SC)
-
The language of Sec. 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) are plain, unambiguous, and without scope of taking outside aid for interpretation.
Mahender Pal Narang Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26387 (SC)
-
Interest component will partake the character of amount due under Section 244A and interest computed after April 1, 1989 should be computed in accordance with Sec. 244A.
Syndicate Bank Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26386 (SC)
-
Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement and on such basis, it cannot be held that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain.
P. P. Mahatme Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26385 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.