-
IBM India is eligible eligible to claim Sec 10AA deduction on incremental income arising pursuant to APA.
IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22976 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10AA
-
As per the Agreements, the assessee is given a right to canvas the advertisement for entire advertisement space and become sole selling agent of BCCL and the payment made by the assessee to the sole selling agent is one made by agent to newspaper company and as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2016, no tax need to be deducted on payment.
Metropolitan Media Company Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22975 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 194C
-
It would be appropriate and just to estimate the expenditure, taking cue from Sec.44ADA.
Amitabh Verma Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22974 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 44ADA
-
Revenue by assessing the LTCG in the hands of the assessee had sought to tax a hypothetical income, which finds its roots in a transaction which had never fructified into a sale transaction.
Futura Polyster Limited Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22973 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The set apart amount u/s. 11(1) of the Act, should be calculated on gross revenue income and not on net income after expenses.
Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22972 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 11(1)
-
Upward revaluation of long-term investments is not permitted under AS-13.
Hespera Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22971 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Queries were raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings about the mismatch of the TDS credit claimed by the assessee viz a viz the TDS credit reported in the form 26AS. Similarly, the query was raised regarding the contracts which were completed in the year under consideration.
M/S. PHOENIX PROJECT PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (2), JAMNAGAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22970 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84137&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A fatal mistake cannot be cured u/s 292B and therefore, for this reason alone, notice u/s 148 and subsequent proceedings should be quashed. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated to assess the escaped income of ₹ 2,89,000/- on account of unexplained investments. No addition has been made by the Assessing Officer towards any unexplained investment. Therefore, the very reason for which re-assessment proceedings were initiated were found satisfactorily explained and no addition has been made, than in such a scenario, any other addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance of the cost of construction cannot be sustained.
SMT. KALA MANISH DHAMEJA VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22969 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84138&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear that after the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), Ajmer the assessee never appeared and attended the proceedings and consequently the appeal of the assessee was decided by impugned ex-parte order. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal that the assessee has not received the impugned order and came to know about the same only when the order passed /s 271(1)(c) dated 12.03.2020 was served upon the assessee at the new address through the process server of the Department.
MUNKA DALL AND OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-4 (2) , JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22968 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84139&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the assessee has sold a residential house on 29.11.2007 and the same is thus not under dispute. Secondly, the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India. In the instant case, the assessee has purchased a plot of land situated at Plot No. 184, Maruti Nagar, Airport Road, Sanganer, Jaipur on 5.11.2007 and thereafter, has carried out construction of a residential house thereon, which as per valuation report has been carried out during the year 2007-08.
SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT VERSUS ITO, WARD-7 (2) , OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22967 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84140&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue does not dispute the fact that the number of rooms in the assessee's hotel remained at 57 and that there was no increase in the number of rooms and only 18 rooms out of 57 rooms were renovated and repaired. Assessee specifically contended that the renovation and repairs neither increases their capacity nor does it empower to revise the basic room tariff because it can be done only after considering further facts such as market condition remaining in Madurai City and with the concurrence of M/s.ITC Limited, as they only have a franchisee agreement with the assessee.
PANDIAN HOTELS LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, MADURAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22966 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83141&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee's consistent TNMM methodology has been rejected by Ld. TPO without any sound basis. Although the principle of res-judicate are not applicable to Income Tax proceedings, however, the rule of consistency would debar the revenue to change its stand in difference assessment years without any sound basis, facts and circumstances being identical.
M/S. LUBRIZOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -LTU, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22965 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84129&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As in the present case the Assessee could not lead the required evidence before the lower authorities. We are of the view that the evidences which the assessee has filed now have a material bearing on the issue which is before us. We further find that assessee had also filed additional evidences before the Co-ordinate bench of Tribunal for A.Y. 2011-12. The same were admitted and the matter was restored to the file of AO.
MOHD. GULZAR VERSUS ITO, WARD – 63 (3) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22964 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84130&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 47 of the Act deals with transaction not regarded as transfer. Section 47(v) of the Act states that nothing contained in Section 45 of the Act shall apply to any transfer of capital asset by subsidiary company to the holding company if (a) the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company, and (b) the holding company is an Indian company. The fact that the company is an Indian company is not disputed.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SHARDLOW INDIA LTD., CHENNAI-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22963 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83134&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The operative part of the Order of the learned Tribunal clearly shows that the matter has only been remanded to the Assessing Authority with similar directions given by the Tribunal in its earlier decision in the case of Aishwarya & Company Private Limited.
M/S. CAPRICORN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE-I (3) , CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22962 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83136&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The sum of ₹ 3.00 Crores received by the respondent company from its subsidiary relevant to the assessment year 2004-05, is not deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. ACCEL LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22961 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83137&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Imposition of penalty and realisation thereof is not a regular source of income for the Income Tax Department. It is only the justifiably imposition of tax which is intended to be recovered and unless there is a mens rea or a guilty animus on the part of the Assessee, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is an exception rather than a rule.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS M/S. CORE CARBONS PVT LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22960 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83138&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The interim order is treated as inoperative.
Tata Education and Development Trust Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22959 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2A)
-
Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not limited only to the amount outstanding and this provision equally applies in relation to the expenses that had already been incurred and paid by the assessee.
SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22958 (SC) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
The finding recorded by the AO is sufficient and a clear indication of his compliance of the procedure u/s. 14A(2). The AO at the first instance has considered whether the claim of the assessee is correct and thereafter only has proceeded to determine the amount by adopting the procedure under Rule 8D.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Tamilnadu Industrial DevelopmentCorporation Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22957 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.