-
Though no development activity was undertaken as confirmed by Revenue, the development agreement was not cancelled and possession of property was not handed over to assesse.
Santosh Kumar Subbani Vs Income-tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24777 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate its case failing which CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law.
Numex Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24776 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
If the position is debatable and not patent and clear, then resort to section 254 (2) of the Act does not appear to be justified and called for. On debatable issues, the Tribunal cannot review its own order.
The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gufic Private Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24775 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 254(2)
-
Assessee had been using the mark Redington since 1993 and even obtained a Certificate of Registration of the trademark in its name with effect from Feb 2000, while the AE was established only in 2005 and there was no documentary evidence to prove that the AE became the owner of the Trademark.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Redington (India) Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24768 (HC-MADRAS)
-
If infraction of procedural provision does not provide for any consequences, such a provision has to be construed as directory.
Wipro Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24767 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 10B
-
HI was economically dependent on HC as HC's business was dependent on installation of equipments by HI which were supplied by HC and that HI could not bid on its own as it did not supply equipments.
M/s Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd Vs The Additional D.I.T International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24766 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Although M/s KPL share price were being jacked up by some people but it can also not be presumed that everyone claiming LTCG on sale of shares of M/s. KPL has been participant in this conspiracy to make windfall gain/loss.
Sunil Kumar Agarwal (HUF) Vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24765 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Merely because the claim of expenditure made by the Assessee is found to be a wrong claim and is disallowed, it does not per se attract imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
Rattha Citadines Boulevard Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24758 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1) (c)
-
Section 56(2)(viib) is applicable on sums received from Residents only.
Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24757 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the cash did not pass at any stage and since neither the respective parties received any cash nor paid any cash, there was no real credit of cash in the cash book and the question of inclusion of the amount of the entry as unexplained cash credit could not arise.
ITO Vs M/s Josan Deposits & Advances Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24756 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68
-
Shares held for more than a month and less than a year should be treated as investment and taxed as STCG, whereas income from shares held for less than a month should be treated as profit from business.
Sunilkumar Somitra Singh Dangi Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24749 (ITAT-SURAT)
-
The DZ Bank AG and DZ Bank India Representative Office are only one taxable unit, that the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of the same assessee twice- once under one article of the treaty i.e. Article 11, and then under another article of the treaty, i.e. Article 7.
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The principles of natural justice have undergone a sea change. The earlier view that even a small violation would result in the order being rendered a nullity is not correct. Some real prejudice must be caused to the complainant by the refusal to follow natural justice. The prejudice must not merely be the apprehension of a litigant. No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle (All imp judgements referred)
State Of U.P vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24735 (SC)
-
Interpretation of statutes & DTAAs: The substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. When a new rule in place of an old rule is substituted, the old one is never intended to keep alive and the substitution has the effect of deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. Though Notification dated 18.07.2005 (which substitutes paragraph 12 of Article 12 of the DTAA to provide for levy of tax on the royalties or fees for technical services at a rate not exceeding 10%) issued u/s 90 came into force with effect from 01.08.2005, it applies to the entire fiscal year
DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24734 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Delay of the respondent in filing a writ petition by itself should not defeat the claim unless the position of the State has been so altered that it cannot be retracted on account of a lapse of time or the inaction of the writ petitioner.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Brahmputra Mettalics Ltd. Ranchi & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24727 (SC)
-
The assessee has incurred an expenditure which gives him enduring benefit, therefore, the same has to be treated as capital expenditure.
M/S. TELCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD Vs THE ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24726 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
If amenities works were actually been undertaken by the builder as per amenities agreement, the same would certainly need to be included in the cost of acquisition.
Mrs. Rashmi Mahendra Dhanani Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24725 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As per Sec. 80A(5) ,what is required to be seen is whether the assessee has made a claim in the return of income filed for the relevant year or not, even though such return is not filed within due date.
The Asst. CIT Vs M/s. DAEE Coop T&C Society
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24724 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 80P
-
Reimbursement of expense cannot be treated as income.
H. Binita Bali Singha Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24723 (ITAT-GAUHATI)
-
If title of an immovable property stands in the name of two persons, it evidences both as co-owners title of the immovable property which is decisive of ownership and not the understanding outside the records which both the parties may have entered into.
Perviz Sarosh Batliwala Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24722 (ITAT-PUNE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.