-
In the absence of any allegation by the AO, the Explanation-1 to section 147 cannot be pressed into service.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23048 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
The second notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 29/3/2011 is bad in law and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are vitiated.
Johnson & Johnson Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since income from business and income from profession falls under the same head, set off of loss from one source of income with another source of income under the same head is allowable as per the provisions of section 70 of the Act.
Vishanji Khimji Karani Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23046 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
If the assessee had failed to raise the factual issue before the AO at the first instance and consciously participated in the proceedings, could not have been permitted to canvass such factual issue for the first time before the Tribunal.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23045 (HC-MADRAS)
-
A purposive interpretation has to be given of provision mentioned in sec.47(v). Otherwise, the provision mentioned in sec.47(v) itself would become redundant.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Shardlow India Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23044 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 47(v)
-
Even after non-disclosure, if the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs THE SWASTIC SAFE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENTS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23043 (SC)
-
The High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23031 (SC)
-
By raising the loans against the FDR and not encashing prematurely the assessee saved the interest and also kept the income earning apparatus intact, therefore the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT (A) was not justified particularly when the assessee had shown the income under the head income from other sources and not the business income.
Anjana Vinayak Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23030 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 57(iii)
-
Income is recognised when it is earned or realised irrespective of whether it is in cash or kind if the shares are exchanged, it can be said the assessee has made realisation of the value of the shares and the difference in the price of the shares would have to be treated as profit of the assessee for the taxation purpose.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Vs M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23023 (HC-DELHI) · Section 2(47)
-
The exercise of withholding of refund under section 241A of the Act, pursuant to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, without recording justifiable reasons, is not in consonance with the legislative intent and mandate of the aforesaid provision.
COONER INSTITUTE OF HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23016 (HC-DELHI) · Section 241A
-
In the absence of any nexus between the unaccounted income & unexplained investment/expenditure, AO had rightly denied set off.
CIT Vs MANOJBHAI BHUPATRAI VADODARIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23015 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 28, 37
-
AO cannot change the method adopted by the assessee for valuing the market value of the shares from discounted cash flow method to net asset value method by merely relying on the actual results in the subsequent years and arbitrarily coming to the conclusion that projections were not achieved.
Karmic Labs Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23014 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Expense incurred by the assessee should be treated as revenue expenditure.
M/s Landis+ Gyr Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23013 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Mere fact that the investment the investment has been made in the name of the wife cannot be a reason for disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the Act.
Sh. Shankar Lal Kumawat Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23012 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 54
-
Limitation provided for passing order u/s 201(1) for subjects AY expired prior to amended Sec 201(3) coming into force and hence a right has been accrued in favour of the assesse.
HCL Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23011 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 201(1), 201(3)
-
Since assessment was made under regular provisions, the assessee was allowed to carry forward deficit of earlier years and set off against current year income in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
KWA Trust Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23004 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
The expenditure incurred which has resulted in increase in capital base of the assessee company has rightly been treated by the Assessing officer as a capital expenditure
M/s Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23000 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
Sale value declared by the assessee is only 46% of the SRO value of ₹ 16,54,500/-. Since the property sold by the assessee is a litigated property, I am of the considered view that the market value of the property cannot exceed the actual sale consideration received by the assessee of ₹ 7,56,250/-.
ARUNA KOMMURI, HYDERABAD VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE – 4 (1), HYDERABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22999 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84211&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that both assessee's father and brother own substantial areas of agricultural land. Therefore, the agricultural income disclosed by them cannot be disputed unless some facts emerged that they have not carried on agricultural activities or have suffered losses in the agricultural activities. Normally farmers do not rely on the banking channel for conducting their day to day activities and do accumulate cash balance.
LOKADRI NAIDU GEDDAM, CHITTOOR. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2 (1) , TIRUPATI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22998 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84215&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Stamp duty expenses incurred for taking the property under consideration on lease for a period of 33 years was to be construed as an intangible asset within the meaning of Sec. 32(1)(ii), and thus eligible for depreciation, cannot be accepted. Apart from that, we are also unable to comprehend that as to how a simpliciter payment of stamp duty expenses on the lease agreement (pending registration), would bring into existence an intangible asset of the same genus, as that of the six specified categories of assets, viz., knowhow, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses or franchises, as contemplated in Sec. 32(1)(ii).
GOLDMOHAR DESIGN AND APPAREL PARK LTD. VERSUS PR. CIT-7, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22997 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84216&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.