-
Section 10B (5) read with Rule 16E mandates that the assessee had to file audit report in Form-56G for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessee had not filed any audit report in Form-56G which was a mandatory requirement for claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. Therefore, the deduction u/s 10B of the Act cannot be thirst upon the assessee.
Karle International Private Ltd Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24268 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Since the payment was not for fees for technical services and further the payment was made to the non residential company having no permanent establishment or business connection in India, the alleged payment for procurement of orders are not subject to deduction of tax at source u/s 195 of the Act.
M/s. Snap Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (IT & TP)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24266 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 195
-
The requirement of formal issue of completion certificate from local authority within the time period is not mandatory in nature and if the project is found to be completed within the time period on evidence, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB cannot be denied.
ACIT Vs Kaiser Jamil Khan
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24265 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 80IB(10)
-
When an assessee whose business is to develop real estates, is in a position to perform certain acts towards the acquisition of land, that would clearly show that it is ready to commence business and, as a corollary, that it has already been set-up.
Crown Home Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24264 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The payment made to non-resident/foreign company towards services rendered outside India, payee had no business connection in India and the services provided by the agents were not managerial in nature. Therefore, the payment made for the said services were not covered u/s 9 (1) (vii) of the Act and not chargeable to tax as fees for technical services in India.
M/s Future Retail Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24263 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vii)
-
The superior courts have held the Income Tax Act to be a welfare legislation, meaning thereby that the tax-payer practical circumstances have to be looked into by the quasi-judicial authority while undertaking assessment proceedings and penal proceedings, thus considering the totality of the facts AO is directed to delete the penalty so levied.
ACIT Vs M/s Gepach International
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24262 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Sometimes, the method applied as per rule 8D (2) (iii) gives absurd results, like the disallowance is more than the actual administrative expenses.
Smt. Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24261 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
There are several instances where residential properties are put to use for non-residential purposes and this cannot be a test to decide the nature of the property under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially, in assessee's case, where the letting out of the property for non-residential purpose was much after the purchase on 03.02.2011 and the lease agreement was on 21.03.2011.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Ramesh Shroff
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24260 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 54F
-
The inspection and ensure of quality of fabric, scheduled shipment of raw material and other related services rendered by the non-resident company would not fall within the ambit of FTS as contemplated u/s. 9(i)(vii) of the Act.
JEANS KNIT PVT. LTD Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24259 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Plain reimbursement to a non-resident would not be income chargeable under the Act, and consequently, should not attract obligation to deduct tax source.
Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24252 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The period levying the penalty had to be counted from the date of payment of tax because the delay in filing the return till the date of payment of tax was already explained on the ground that the assessee could not pay the taxes for which separate penal provisions exist.
M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24251 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The assessee was entitled to claim the business expenses in respect of the income from the services provided and hiring of equipment, and statutory deductions u/s 24 (a) of the Act insofar as the income from the house property was concerned. Therefore, AO is directed to allow the statutory deduction u/s 24 (a) of the Act and the interest incurred in respect of the house property.
Chander Nagar Chemicals And Mineral Private Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24250 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The discount given to the customers cannot be subject to deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act and accordingly, disallowance of discount given to the customers under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is unwarranted.
Tata Sky Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24249 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
This amendment clearly suggests that right to use spectrum is not covered by the provisions of Section 35ABB of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee had correctly claimed depreciation u/s 32 of the Act prior to insertion of Section 35ABA under the statute.
Vodafone India Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24242 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 35ABA
-
A transfer does not cease to be revocable because the power of revocation cannot be exercised by the settlor without the consent of the named individuals.
ITO Vs M/s Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24241 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 61
-
On reading of the order of the lower authorities we do not find mention of any of the provisions of the income tax act which provides that short payment of dividend distribution tax may be added to the income of the assessee and assessee can further be saddled with payment of tax on such short payment of dividend distribution tax.
DLF Limited Vs Addl. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24234 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Findings of the AO nowhere establishes that the transaction was undertaken by the assessee to evade taxes.
M/s. Vodafone India Limited Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24233 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
It may be appropriate to have a Committee of legal experts presided by a retired Judge to give their imprimatur to the settlement so that such apprehensions do not come in the way of arriving at a settlement.
NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVEDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24232 (SC)
-
Assessee's contract was composite and consequently that the assessee had failed to make a full and true disclosure of income, as putting the cart before the horse.
Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, International Taxation – 1 Vs M/s.Hitachi Power Europe GmbH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24217 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Attempt to blame the Chartered Accountant cannot result in the assessee's exoneration.
M/s.Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24216 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.