-
There is no separate interest expenditure incurred by assessee other than the interest incurred to earn interest income, therefore disallowance u/s.14A is unwarranted.
Shri Vinay Ramakant Sapte Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24477 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 57(iii)
-
Revenue can alter book-profit only as per Explanation 1 to Sec. 115JB(2) and cannot recast the audited accounts that are adopted under the Companies Act.
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24476 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 115JB
-
For invoking Sec. 36(1)(ii), the AO will have to give clear cut finding as to what was tax avoidance or tax evasion involved in this case.
Mehta Equities Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24475 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(ii)
-
Perversity can be taken up in an appeal u/s. 260A.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri. Rakesh Sarin
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24468 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 260A
-
The law provides for imposition of penalty by an officer of the rank of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, the AO is statutorily debarred for forming any satisfaction either at the time of assessment order or subsequent thereto.
M/s. B. P. Patel and Co. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24467 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 271E
-
Income taxed under DTAA cannot be included in the calculation of adjusted total income under Exp. (i) to Sec. 44C as the computation provisions u/s. 28 to 43CA do not apply there.
MUFG Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24466 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 44C
-
Share transfer did not amount to indirect transfer u/s 9(1)(i) in the light of Explanations 6 & 7 inserted vide Finance Act, 2015.
Augustus Capital PTE Ltd Vs The Dy.C.I.T
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24454 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There is a difference between net assets which is based on the net book value of the assets and the fair market value of the assets as on the date of issue of shares.
M/s. Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24453 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
SC - SLP Dismissed - Writ against case transfer u/s. 127 from Tirunelveli to Madurai dismissed by HC.
V.V. MINERALS Vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24446 (SC) · Section 127
-
HC - The disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, cannot exceed such exempt income itself during the relevant AY. The disallowance of expenditure incurred for the year in question only can be considered under Section 14A of the Act and no such hypothetical earning in future as against no expenditure incurred for that, is envisaged under Section 14A.
M/s. Marg Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24445 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A
-
ITAT - Since there was no “mens rea” or other "mal intention" for deducting TDS at a lower or wrong rate on property purchase, No penalty u/s. 271C.
Shri Jitendra Sharma Vs JCIT (Intl Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24444 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
No deduction for the aforesaid provision was claimed by the assessee while computing its income for the year in which it was created i.e A.Y 2013-14, the inclusion of the same on its reversal in the books of account during the year in question i.e A.Y 2017-18 would undoubtedly lead to a double taxation in its hands.
BNP Paribas India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
This claim of expenditure is against the trade practice and the assessee appears to have borne the expenses only on the reasoning that the same was charged upon it by its parent company.
M/s. Nike India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24442 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37
-
Deletion of penalty is upheld following jurisdictional HC ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Ltd. and recent ruling in Ryatara Sahakari Karkhane Niyamitha, for AO's failure to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated.
ACIT Vs Smt. Mamatha Mohan
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24441 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Provision of section 195 are not applicable to the reimbursement of demurrage charges paid to the non-resident shipping company on behalf of the assessee by Wilmar Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Gokul Refoils & Solvent Ltd. Vs The Dy. CIT, International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24440 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 195
-
The commission retained by the credit card company is therefore in the nature of normal banking charges and not in the nature of commission for acting on behalf of the merchant establishment.
Asst. Commissioner of Income – tax Vs Head Infotech India Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24439 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 194H
-
The assessee can compute tax at the rate beneficial to it which is in accordance of provisions of Section 90(2) of the Act, wherein the expression to the extent makes it evident that provisions of the Act or Treaty, whichever is beneficial, is applicable to the assessee.
IBM World Trade Corporation Vs The Director of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24432 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
It is noteworthy here that 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act restricts the total depreciation which can be claimed in case of succession etc. to depreciation which would have been allowable had there been no succession.
Padmini Products (P) Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24425 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 32(1)
-
Even if we go by economical considerations, the burden of DDT falls on the shareholders rather than on the company, as the amount of distributed profits available for shareholders stands reduced to the extent of DDT levied.
Giesecke & Devrient [India] Pvt Ltd Vs The Addl. C.I.T
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24418 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Advance received against the land held as stock-in-trade not covered by Sec. 56(2)(ix).
Shri Ravi Shankar Shetty Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24417 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(ix)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.