-
In the present case the source & destination (i.e. investment) are business income/assets, thus as a fortiori, such an income will be considered as Business income covered under Chapter IV-D of the Act forming part of book-profit for the purposes of allowing remuneration to partners.
Sagar Samrat Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24546 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 69, 69A
-
The income of the foreign branch from the credit given to its card holders outside India cannot be taxed in the hands of the Indian branch since it has not arisen in India and also it cannot be attributed to the assets and activities of the Indian branch, as is required by Article 7 of the DTAA.
Standard Chartered Grindlays Vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24539 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 37(1), 44C
-
As per notice issued by the AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the allegation of the AO is specific that the assessee has concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and there is no ambiguity on this aspect as to whether the allegation is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Shri. Mallikarjun H. Meti Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24538 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
In the impugned order, there is no trace of patent, manifest and self-evident error which can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. What the applicant wants is a review of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is not permissible under the Act.
Dorf Ketal Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT, CC-8
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24537 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
HC - Interest received by bank in advance on discounting of bills against letter of credit is taxable on accrual basis and not on receipt, i.e. mercantile system of accounting.
M/s.The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24528 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The expression land or building in its coverage is quite distinct from the expression any right in land or building. The legislature, in its wisdom, has used the expression land or building or both in Section 50C(1) of the Act, and not the expression any right in land or building.
Noida Cyber Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24527 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
After introduction of the electronic filing of the return of income as well as all other documents, there is no debate available that even if the audit report is filed before the assessment is made, same is acceptable and the deduction cannot be denied to the assessee.
Pradeep Kumar Batra Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24526 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80- IB(11A)
-
The entire findings of the DRP are based on erroneous appreciation of wrong facts and on such erroneous appreciation of wrong facts, the DRP held that BTIN is the PE of the appellant in India without appreciating the true facts that the appellant has no place of disposal in India in the office of BTIN from where the appellant could have conducted its business in India.
Bombardier Transportation Sweden AB Vs The D.C.I.T
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24525 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Despite the fact that the assessee has given the complete details of agreement vide which tangible and intangible assets of running business of KPIT Cummins were purchased as per valuation report, AO has disallowed the depreciation ignoring the settled principle of law.
DCIT Vs M/s. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24524 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Non-mentioning of the charge against the assessee in the show cause notice cannot be considered as a mistake, omission or defect.
Shri Mahendra B. Chowhan Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24523 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 292B
-
Declining the claim of the assessee by the AO nowhere attracted the penalty being it is not a case of furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income.
Jamsetji Tata Trust Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24516 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
Non-resident assessee not liable to pay advance tax and subsequently the interest u/s 234B as duty is cast upon the payer to deduct and pay tax at source.
ESPN Star Sports Mauritius Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24515 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As per provisions of section 14A disallowance has to be computed having regards to the accounts of the assessee and if the said method adopted by the assessee was found to be not satisfactory, only then the computation was to be done as per Rule 8D.
Tata Projects Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24514 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14
-
Section 260A does not empower the HC to reconsider its earlier view in the same proceedings and reformulate a question of law which it had refused to formulate citing the MP HC ruling in Kishanchand v. Ramkrishna.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs V. M. SALGAONKAR BROTHERSPRIVATE LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24507 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Considering exception clause carved in Sub Clause (d) of Clause 3 of the said CBDT Instruction, the Assessing Officer should have sought permission from the ld. PCIT to enquire into this issue of assessability of payment of on-money consideration at the time of purchase of land.
M/s. Sahayamatha Salterns Pvt. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24506 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 263
-
Merely pointing out to a source and the source admitting that it has made the payments is not sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the assessees by Section 68.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sadiq Sheikh
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24493 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
In the present case there was no reference made by the authorities below suggesting that the transaction is carried illegally. Moreover, the transactions in the instant case were within the ambit of the law as per the provision of section 2(1B) of the Act.
Urmin Marketing P. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24492 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
MIPL did not fulfil any of the three conditions set forth in Article 5(7) of India- Japan.
ACIT Vs M/s. Mitsui & Co. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24480 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There is no strict requirement of completion of construction u/s 54F(1) to become eligible for exemption. The passport to derive benefit under sec 54F(1) is investment in construction of property within the period required u/s 54F(1) or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 54F of the Act.
Padma Rajagopalan Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24479 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The provisions of section 44AD of the Act overrides all other provisions contained in section 28 to 43C. Admittedly, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia)of the Act falls within this range of sections 28 to 43C of Chapter-XVII B of the I.T. Act.
Shri Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24478 (ITAT-SURAT) · Sections 40(a)(ia), 44AD
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.