-
The assessee was not able to prove by any evidence to justify retraction from the earlier admission on disclosing the sale transaction in the original return of income disclosing capital gains. However, the assessee by claiming now it to be Family Settlement tried to defraud the Revenue to reduce the taxable returned income.
Smt. Soni Sonu Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24342 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is well settled rule of statutory interpretation that when a situation has been expressed differently, the legislation must be taken to have been tended to express a different intention.
Brigade Enterprises Ltd Vs The CIT, The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24335 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 80IB(10)(c)
-
Section 47(iii) makes it very clear that any transfer of a capital asset under a gift or will or an irrevocable trust shall not be liable to income tax under the head capital gains and the proviso to the said section is also not applicable to the present case.
Asian Satellite Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24334 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Once, it was established that bank account was not belongs to assessee and he was not a beneficial owner, then further additions towards estimated return of income on said unexplained money is arbitrary.
Mr. Kamal Galani Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24333 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The tax treaty cannot be thrust upon an assessee. In case the assessee during one year does not opt for the tax treaty, it would not be precluded from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years.
Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24326 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Where the addition in the income were made on estimate basis that itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2)(1) Vs M/s. Ehara Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24325 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In view of the matters having already taken long so far to be decided right from AY 2002-03 to AY 2009-10, after which about 10-11 years have now passed by, we request the learned Tribunal to decide the appeals now within a period of six months from today.
M/s. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24312 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Time limit for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) ended on 30th Sept 2017, thus the notice was issued beyond period of limitation.
M/s Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24311 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 143(2)
-
Since the right in the flat was acquired at the time of booking on 08.11.2009, accordingly the right in the property was held for more than three years before its transfer on 23.11.2013 and therefore, capital gains were, in the nature of Long term capital gains.
Ashok Behl Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24310 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
There is no reason to disbelieve the statement given by the assessee that the payments were given for meeting petty cash or miscellaneous expenses and were in the range of Rs.5000 to Rs.10000 only, thus the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Manchukonda Shyam
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24309 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
-
It is crystal clear on facts that the assessee never asked for the copy of the reasons during the entire assessment and appellate proceedings, and therefore, there was no obligation as well as occasion for the AO to supply copy of the reasons to the assesse.
Smt. Malti Khandelwal Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24308 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
The addition under 56 (2) (vii) (c) being the difference between alleged fair market value of shares and the subscribed value of shares was not sustainable. It was only when a higher than proportionate allotment of fresh shares issued by a company was received by a shareholder, the provisions of section 56 (2) (vii) get attracted.
DCIT Vs Smt. Veena Goyal
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24307 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2)(vii)(c)
-
It is not in dispute that the eligibility to the balance additional depreciation in the succeeding year introduced vide Finance Act 2015 is available to the assesse. However the amendment is not applicable to the year under consideration as it is effective from 01.04.2016.
Vedanta Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24306 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 32(1)(iia)
-
The details of value of tangible assets taken over by the assessee by the slump sale agreement are necessary to be considered for adjudication of this issue.
Demag Delaval Industries Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24299 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee made provision of Rs. 10.24 crore and ultimately made expenses of Rs. 10.46 crore, which clearly demonstrate that assessee made the provision after due diligence which cannot be said to be an adhoc provision.
DCIT Vs M/s HDFC Sales Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24298 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 37, 40(a)(ia)
-
Once the corresponding liability in the accounts had been shown, the depreciation on the asset should be given irrespective of the fact that for that year only part payment was made for acquisition of the asset.
Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs M/s V.Hotels Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24291 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The present writ petitions raise substantial questions of law.
TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL III HOLDINGS Vs THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) & ORG
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24290 (HC-DELHI)
-
As per section 54F of the Act, the assessee was only required to have construction on the plot for residential purpose and that condition had been fulfilled by the assessee to construct two rooms with boundary wall and an iron entry gate on said plot which was not disputed either by AO or CIT (A).
Sarita Devi Garg Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24289 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
An exception has been carved out in Article 5(5) to exclude an agent from being treated as a PE, if such agent is of an independent status and provides services to the enterprise in the ordinary course of its business.
Overseas Transport Co. Ltd. Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24282 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
It is settled law that in case of unaccounted sales only profit therefrom could only be taxed as income of assessee.
Shri Nawal Kishore Soni Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24269 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.