-
Distribution rights granted by assessee to its distribution agent is only a commercial right / Broad Cast reproduction right and not copyright and consequently considertation received by the assessee for the same cannot be treated as royalty or fees for included services under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA
M/s.NGC Network Asia LLC Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Tax)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24951 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
A father as a guardian may manage the affairs with regard to the shares standing in the name of his minor sons, but this will not make him the beneficial owner of the shares as no benefit or advantage arising out of the shares had accrued to the father.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kamalbhai Jayantilal Shah
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24950 (ITAT-SURAT)
-
An income tax inspection and/ or investigation would be permissible only for a past event but not for possible future contingencies.
M/s Mectec Vs CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24945 (HC-AP)
-
Revenue, for AY 2013-14, incorrectly taxed the advance amount, forfeited by the assessee on an umaterialized property deal, under the head Income from Other Sources applying the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(ix).
Meera Goyal Vs Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24944 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(ix)
-
When the main judgment of the High Court cannot be effected in any manner, no relief can be granted by this Court in the special leave petition filed against order rejecting review application to review the main judgment of the High Court.
T.K. DAVID Vs KURUPPAMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24931 (SC)
-
When the new and old address of the assessee are in the same locality, it cannot be believed that the assessee does not make such arrangement with the postal department. If the assessee does not make any such arrangement, the reason for the non-service of notice would be attributable to the assessee alone.
Amarjeet Kaur Bawa Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24930 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Section 54F is beneficial provision and should be interpreted liberally and the Assessing Officer has to see the end utilization of net sale consideration in the way prescribed in Section 54F.
Shri Ramaiah Dorairaj Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24929 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Just because the assessee had made payments through banking channels to the vendors and recorded the diamonds purchased in its stock book does not make the transactions to be genuine with conclusive evidence.
Karni Jewellers Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24928 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
It is not possible to take two different stands one in income tax proceedings and other in wealth tax proceedings. A distinction is required to be drawn between the two activities i.e., let out or commercial exploitation.
M/s. Shastha Pharma Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Wealth Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24927 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 24
-
There is a conceptual difference between the power of review and the power to reassess, that the Assessing Officer has no power to review, but he has a power to reassess, that the reassessment should be based on fulfillment of certain preconditions and that if the concept of change of opinion is removed, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place.
M/s. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. Vs Union of India, rep. by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central II), The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24921 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Mr. Cyrus Mistry's action of supplying documents to the income tax department, without any authorization of the company even though which were apparently obtained by him in the fiduciary capacity, almost immediately after being removed as Chairman of the Tata Sons, cannot be said to be influenced by call of a pure conscious and high ground of morality.
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24914 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The receipt of money of Rs 1.20 crores is a movable asset for which no registration is warranted. Even oral gift is permissible and it need not be deduced into writing especially when it is done amongst close family members as there are least chances to suspect the same.
Shri Mahesh Arun Gawli Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24913 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When there is an issue of bonus shares, the money remains with the company and nothing comes to the shareholders as there is no transfer of the property and the provisions of Sec.56(2) (vii)(c) are not attracted.
The DCIT Vs DR. RANJAN PAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24906 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
Remuneration and interest received from a firm, to the extent eligible u/s 40(b), would be considered as profits and gains from business or profession of the recipient- partner, however that by itself would not translate such remuneration and interest, to gross receipts or turnover of business independently carried on by the partner.
Mr.Anandkumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24905 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 44AD
-
It is settled law that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the court should normally condone the delay as the intent of the court is always to promote substantial justice.
HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24904 (HC-DELHI)
-
Provisions of sec. 17(2)(iii) would not be applicable to grant of interest free loan by the company to its director.
Mr. J.S. Gujral Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24903 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 17(2)(iii)
-
Even if the investments were violative of Sec.11(5), exemption u/s 11 could be denied only with respect to income arising therefrom i.e. dividend, which was anyway exempt u/s 10(34), and hence it was completely tax neutral exercise not causing any prejudice to the Revenue.
Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since the original assessment order was quashed on the grounds of non-service of notice, the seized material which was the basis of the original assessment order, can be the basis for reopening assessment under Sec. 147 and 148.
Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24896 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As per Sub-section (3) of Section 153 of the Act, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order u/s.263 of the Act, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s.263 of the Act is passed by the Commissioner.
M/s. Ejaz Tannin Company Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24880 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
When the order passed under section 263 of the Act has lost its existence by virtue of the order of the Tribunal, all proceedings consequent to the order passed under section 263 of the Act would automatically become invalid.
Pfizer Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24879 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.