-
The provisions of section 50C of the Act could not be applied to sale development rights of land owned by the assessee.
M/s. Network Construction Company Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23095 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 50C
-
The payment of Rs.89 lakhs on account of pension to wholetime Directors on the basis of Board resolution of the assessee company was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee and was allowable as deduction.
ACIT Vs M/s. Tata Sons Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23088 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
In the case of the assessee herein on 07-11-2001, the investigation wing of department after almost one year has only converted the non-existent prohibitory order into deemed seizure, and therefore in the present case the panchnama dated 07-11-2001 is only for the purposes of extending the limitation period.
Narang International Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23087 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The said amount was paid towards advertisement and publicity enabling the assessee company to advertise its real estate projects by way of display boards in all the matches at Feroz Shah Kotla Cricket Stadium. This obviously improved the performance of the functioning of the assessee company and hence, the same would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23086 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is a settled law that upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, the amalgamating Company ceased to exist in the eyes of law & it cannot be regarded as a person in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act and consequently no assessment proceeding can be initiated or an assessment order can be passed.
Duke Arnics Electronics Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23085 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In all the co-ordinate bench decisions, there was no discussion to the connotations of the expression paid and these decisions simply proceeded on the basis that because the expression paid was used in Article 11(1) of Indo Cyprus tax treaty, the taxability of interest could only be on cash basis.
Ampacet Cyprus Limited Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23084 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since, the goodwill is an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act in the form of industrial, business and commercial rights, the assessee would be eligible for depreciation u/s.32 of the Act.
M/s. Classic Stripes Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23083 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The decision which was not cited by the Revenue or relied upon by the Revenue at the time of hearing cannot be a ground for mistake in the order of the Tribunal when the Tribunal has followed the various other decisions of Hon'ble High Courts as well as decision of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court.
Shri Kailash Chand Bangur Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23082 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Assessee had complied with all the conditions of grant of stay which was granted earlier and further, that the non disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee since the matter is pending for adjudication by a Third Member.
M/s Gujranwala Jewellers (BSG) Vs The Asst.CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23081 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
-
It is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach of the other limb of Section 271(1)(c). This has certainly vitiated the order of penalty.
Shri. Omprakash T. Mehta Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23080 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Revenue warned against filing frivolous appeal. Precious time should not be wasted during covid.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.SPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23079 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The respondent can have no objection to being held bound by its own averments in the reply/counter affidavit. Consequently, the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs by the respondent are accepted by this Court and respondent is held bound by the same.
MASTERCARD ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23075 (HC-DELHI)
-
The assessee could not be said to be Associated Entity of M/s DBPL in terms of Article-10 of the Treaty. Hence, the conclusion drawn by AO, in this regard, could not be sustained as per the Treaty terms.
Next Gen Films Private Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23074 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The AO was not justified in disallowing the expenses by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act and thus, the order of AO is being set aside.
Peartree Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23073 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
While interpreting the provisions of Section 10(38) of the income tax act we do not find that if the source is excluded or included it will give any other result.
Mr. Nikhil Sawhney Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23067 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Where the TDS statement had been processed by the CPC and while processing the same, fee u/s 234E had been levied having tax effect less than the prescribed limit, it will continue to be governed by low tax effect circular issued by the CBDT which was binding on the Revenue.
Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23066 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 234E
-
The draft order framed u/s 144C(1) of the Act is in the name of a non-existent company and accordingly, void ab initio, making all subsequent proceedings non- est.
BOEING India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23059 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 195
-
The impugned disallowance of credit of TDS under intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act suffered legal irregularity and cannot be sustained.
AWP ASSISTANCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23058 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 143(1)
-
Since no depreciation can be claimed for individual assets under the Block of assets concept under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is eligible as per the block of asset.
Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23057 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The liability to pay the retirement benefit has arisen based on the demand raised by the NTPC following the direction of DPE guidelines. Therefore the liability is an ascertained liability that has been crystallized and discharged by the assessee during the year and the same could not be named as an uncertain provision.
DCIT Vs NTPC ELECTRICAL SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23056 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.