-
The assessee had acquired a capital asset in the form of tenancy rights and its transfer resulted in capital gain.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Shikha Roy
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24878 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases.
Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The appellate authorities did not follow Rule 28AA, even after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellate authority to provide the TDS computation as per the rule, thus, making the decision-making process in the present case contrary to law.
MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24876 (HC-DELHI) · Section 264
-
Where sufficient cause for non- appearance is shown later, ITAT is obligated to consider the same and make an order setting aside the ex- parte order, irrespective of the fact that the final order was decided on merits.
M/S KALRA PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED. Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24875 (HC-DELHI)
-
As the assessee has gifted the share, there is no accrual of any revenue to the assesse there is not any inflow of cash, receivables or other consideration, there is no question of accrual of any consideration to the assesse.
Manjula Finance Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24867 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Share application as transferred/ assigned would constitute capital asset u/s 2(14).
DCIT Vs M/s Morarjee Realities Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24866 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the instant case, Revenue failed to record any satisfaction with regard to genuineness of the claim of the assessee before invoking the powers u/s 14A read with Rule 8D and in the absence of recording such satisfaction, Rule 8D could not have been invoked.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24865 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 37
-
The AO's refusal to grant foreign tax credit under article 23(2) of India Japan DTAA on the ground that the assessee's income (legal fees) was not taxable in Japan under Article 14 (Independent Personal Services) & that the taxes were wrongly withheld in Japan is not justified. The income could have been taxed under Article 12 (Fees for Technical Services). Even otherwise, one has to take a judicious call as to whether the view adopted by the source jurisdiction of taxing the income is a reasonable and bonafide view, which may or may not be the same as the legal position in the residence jurisdiction. The view of the treaty partner should be adopted unless it is wholly unreasonable or manifestly erroneous
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24862 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
(i) The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India. The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law. (ii) S. 115JB applies to banking companies after the 2012 amendment. Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. (iii) The argument that S. 90 overrides S. 115JB and so the incomes taxed abroad should be excluded from taxation of book profits u/s 115 JB is not correct. Treaty protection come normally into play for taxation of a non-resident in India, i.e. source country taxation, and not for taxation of a resident in whose hands global income is to be taxed anyway. All that one gets in the residence jurisdiction, by the virtue of tax treaties, is tax credits for the taxes paid abroad.
Bank of India vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24861 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
(i) The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India. The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law. (ii) S. 115JB applies to banking companies after the 2012 amendment. Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. (iii) The argument that S. 90 overrides S. 115JB and so the incomes taxed abroad should be excluded from taxation of book profits u/s 115 JB is not correct. Treaty protection come normally into play for taxation of a non-resident in India, i.e. source country taxation, and not for taxation of a resident in whose hands global income is to be taxed anyway. All that one gets in the residence jurisdiction, by the virtue of tax treaties, is tax credits for the taxes paid abroad.
Bank of India vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24860 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The observation made by ITAT on the doctrine of merger would not hold good.
GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF) Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24859 (SC)
-
Purpose of deduction of tax at source is not to collect a sum which is not a tax levied under the Act, it is to facilitate the collection of tax lawfully leviable under the Act.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24858 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 195
-
In absence of there being some enabling provision allowing AO to change the method of valuation, the choice of method adopted by the assessee cannot be disturbed.
TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24857 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Given the considerate approach adopted by the field authorities, there is no need to pass a stay order in this case.
Grasim Industries Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24846 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no estoppel against law if the assessee proves that any transaction does not belong to it, then no addition is called for acceptance of any addition, which is against law, will not bar the assessee from contesting the same.
M/s Veerabhadrappa Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24845 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
All appointments prior to Feb 12, 2020 would be governed by the parent statutes and rules while the Tribunal Rules 2020 with the modifications suggested by SC would apply to all appointments made after Feb 12, 2020.
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24844 (SC)
-
The exclusion clause, under article 12(4), covers only payments to to any individual for independent personal services referred to in article 14.
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24831 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The question of validity of rectification proceedings goes to the root of the matter and thus, CIT(A) is incorrect in holding the same as general in nature.
M/s. ETS Lindgren Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24830 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Inspite of maintaining separate accounts for each unit, still assessee did not book any expenditure towards partner's remuneration in the Jammu unit, thus, raising question on the correctness of the profit calculated for Jammu unit that needs to be corrected.
M/s. Accent Pharma Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24829 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 80-IB
-
Since Revenue was not timely informed about merger, therefore assessment of non-existent company is curable.
Serendipity Infolabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24828 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.