-
It is an admitted fact that though Explanation 5 has been inserted in section 9(1)(vi) of the Act but no amendment has been made to the definition of Royalty under DTAA and since the provisions of DTAA are beneficial to the assessee, then the said provisions would be applied.
NAGRAVISION S.A., C/O-ERNST & YOUNG LLP VERSUS THE ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , CIRCLE-2 (2) (2), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22956 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84118&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of the provisions of Section115TD of the Act, the accreted income of the assessee due to the exemption, if any, granted to the assessee in earlier years become taxable in view of the amended objects of the assessee, hence, even if the claim of exemption is allowed to the assessee for the assessment years under consideration that will not serve any useful purpose as the assessee in the subsequent years will be liable to pay tax on such accreted income.
PUNJAB CRICKET ASSOCIATION VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 6 (4), MOHALI, THE DCIT, CIRCLE 6 (1) , MOHALI, THE ACIT, CIRCLE 6 (1), MOHALI, THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MOHALI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22955 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84119&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in TATA TELESERVICES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 1 Section 201(3) has amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and therefore, no order u/s 201(1) could be passed for which limitation had already expired prior to amended section 201(3) as amended Finance Act 3 of 2014 came into force.
HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD VERSUS ACIT (TDS) , NOIDA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22954 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84121&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, appellant only provides service by using its hardware/security devices/personnel and not use of any software. The appellant is only providing IDC service which includes administration and supervision of central infrastructure, mailbox hosting services and website hosting services.
EDENRED PTE LTD., C/O SRBC ASSOCIATES & LLP VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -3 (2) , -MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22953 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84122&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petition under Section 391 of Cr.PC had been filed by the Petitioners even at the time of presentation of the appeal. These documents sought to be marked as additional evidence are not new documents and they are documents relating to filing of returns with the Respondent in respect of earlier years and the copies of which are also available with the Respondent.
M/S. GANGOTHRI TEXTILES LIMITED, SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIBERWAL, SRI MOHANLAL TIBERWAL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE, COIMBATORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22952 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83130&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the amount is paid on the basis of actual use of software and not for acquisition of software, there was no question of treating the said expenses as capital expenditure. Therefore, Tribunal held that the authorities below had wrongly held the software payment to be capital expenditure in nature and accordingly upheld the stand taken by the assessee directing the Assessing Officer to treat the software expenses as revenue expenditure.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS M/S. AKER POWERGAS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22951 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83132&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue did not dispute that that it is not the profit but turnover criteria which is more suitable involving such a factual backdrop of eligible and non eligible units since the former may or may not involve deduction in earlier years under the provisions of the Act whereas the turnover benchmark is always applicable even it involves losses as well.
DCIT Vs M/s. A.P. Fashions Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22950 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 80IA
-
Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured u/s.292B, Hence, the Assessment proceedings as well as the Assessment order itself are void ab initio.
Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22949 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the asset has entered into block of assets and depreciation has been allowed in the succeeding year, the WDV of such asset is to be accepted as sacrosanct and depreciation has to be allowed on the same.
Kay Jay Auto Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22948 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Sec.40A(2)(b) disallowance is deleted in respect of the interest-free deposit given by the assessee employer to the landlord for providing accommodation to the employee.
Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22947 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40A(2)
-
Revenues under the IDC agreement ought not to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as royalty under the Act and India-Singapore DTAA.
Edenred Pte Ltd. Vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since this Bench last assembled on June 15, 2020, the situation arising out of the pandemic is yet to improve. To serve the ends of justice, the interim order initially passed on March 26, 2020, shall stand extended till August 31, 2020.
Cleared Secured Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22945 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The stay already granted by the Tribunal deserves extension.
Infosys Ltd vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22944 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
As could be seen from the facts on record, identical addition of interest on interest free security deposit was made by the AO in assessee's own case in the assessment year 2012–13. When the dispute ultimately came up for consideration before the Tribunal The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties and relevant facts and materials on record, though, upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer in computing interest on interest free security deposit received by the assessee, however, the quantum was reduced from 10% to 9%.
DEENA ASIT MEHTA VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–4 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22943 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84104&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The basis of denying the claim of deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act is on account of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Regency Creations Limited Wherein it was held that the assessee not having got the necessary approval from the appropriate authority under the statute, was not entitled to deduction u/s 10B of the I.T.Act. However, the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was modified in the Review Petition in the case of CIT v. Valiant Communications Ltd. wherein the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to consider the assessee's alternative claim u/s 10A of the I.T.Act.
M/S. KRYTHIUM SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. MENON & PAI ADVOCATES VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 (2) KOCHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22942 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84107&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 147 for escapement of income which was the returned income filed prior to issue of notice u/s 148 in the belated return and as well as in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 and since the AO has accepted the said returned income and proceeded to make various other additions without issuing fresh notice u/s 147/148, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has exceeded his jurisdiction in reassessing issues other than the issues in respect of which the proceedings are initiated and reasons for the initiation of those proceedings cease to survive.
RAJ BALA, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, JOGINDER DAHIYA, C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, VERSUS ITO, WARD-21 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22941 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84109&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal did not examine the nature of transaction and the issue as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the cause shown by the assessee to be a reasonable cause to be entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The decision, which has been referred to in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, does not relate to the assessee. Tribunal referred to the said decision and allowed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. We find that there is no discussion as to why those two decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case respectively dated 31.10.2013 and 22.7.2014 Could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
SRI. M. PALANI ADAICALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, PUDUCHERRY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22940 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83121&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue stake involved in the present case is much below the limit of rupees one crore for withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue, since the present case involved some audit objection because of exemption in the said Circular, the learned counsel for the Revenue press the appeal on merits.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS SMT. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22939 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83122&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Respondents while issuing the impugned certificate has placed detailed reasons on record. The petitioner had in its own application for grant of certificate of deduction of tax at source at NIL rate under Section 197 had mentioned the applicable rates as 2% and/or 10% during Financial Year 2020-21. She also states that the projected gross receipts during this Financial Year 2020-21 is projected to be 78% more than the preceding year according to the petitioner itself.
MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -1 NEW DELHI & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22938 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83124&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No remand report is required, for the reason that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is very clear from the records. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. VERSUS M/S. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22937 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84083&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.