-
The evidences need to be seen in their entirety as the burden of proving that the foreign assessee has a PE in India and consequently it has to be taxed on the business generated by such PE is initially on the Revenue. Such is the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ADIT vs E-funds IT Solutions Inc. In such a scenario, the question of taxability of service PE in India of the assessee company is answered in the negative. The evidences have also been gone into by the CIT(A), who has given detailed finding.
THE DDIT, CIRCLE-2 (2) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS (ASIA) PTE. LTD., C/O-M. K. MANDAL AND ASSOCIATE, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22936 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84084&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On verification of the TDS certificate in Form no.16A, by Unity Infra Projects Ltd., learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also recorded a finding of fact that such certificate shows labour charges. As rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), AO has not made any in–depth enquiry to ascertain the correctness of assessee's claim regarding the receipt of labour charges. By simply issuing a notice under section 133(6) of the Act to Unity Infra Projects Ltd., the AO has finished his part of the job without pursuing the concerned party any further even after not receiving any reply.
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD–26 (2) (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS MOHD. IRSAD MOHD. SAMIULLAH ALAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22935 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the appellant acts as the central coordinator for all Damco entities across the globe. As a central coordinator, the appellant procures from various service providers viz. insurance, procurement of various product and information technology related support services etc. needed by Damco entities across the globe. The appellant enters into MSA with Damco operating entities and therefore, recovers the cost of procurement/provision from these entities. All these costs are only reimbursed to the appellant and there is no mark-up.
DAMCO INTERNATIONAL A/S, C/O. DAMCO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -2 (1) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22934 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84088&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts are very clear that the assessee filed return on 02.01.2013, which is beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139(1). In the return of income the assessee has declared loss consisting of business loss for the year and unabsorbed depreciation. As per the provision of section 139(3) to carry forward business loss u/s 72(1), assessee should have filed its return of income in time allowed u/s 139(1).
ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI VERSUS NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22933 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84091&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) rendered a factual finding that the assessee has assigned separate values for the immovables consisting of land and building and movables consisting of furnitures and fixtures, plant and machinery, patents, net current assets and therefore, concluded that the consideration for transfer cannot be called as a lump sum consideration. It was decided that, the sale effected by the assessee does not constitute slump sale as per Section 2(42C) of the Act and hence the provisions of Section 50B will not be applicable.
M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE VI (1) CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22932 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83113&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reimbursement of cost cannot be taxable in India being devoid of any profit element/income.
Damco International Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International taxation)-2(1)(1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22931 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee is allowed to claim depreciation on software developed to maintain national IT website.
Taxman Publications Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22930 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The only verification required, was with respect to the extent to which such income is applied for such purposes outside India, and not as to how the contributions to Cornwell University USA and Harvard University USA tend to promote the international welfare in which India is interested.
Tata Education and Development Trust Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22929 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
It is settled law that the taxation of subsidy by whatever name called, is determined by the purpose for which the subsidy is granted and not the manner in which the subsidy is received.
Dy. CIT Vs M/s Nestle India Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22928 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The AO erroneously treated the assessee as a mutual association instead of charitable organization merely on the ground that services were rendered by the assessee to its members.
M/s. Confederation of Indian Textile Industry Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22927 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(15), 11
-
All the AEs did not constitute a PE in India and hence, the payments were not taxable in India.
M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22926 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
There is no reference whatsoever to the incriminating material found during the course of search upon the assessee on the basis of which this addition of unsecured loan has been done in the hands of the assessee under section 153A.
MR. RAJESH PODDAR VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (4) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22925 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84080&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mandate of law, even where a concluded assessment is sought to be reopened by the A.O within a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is must that the A.O has fresh material or information with him, that had led to the formation of belief on his part that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments in the case of NYK Lime (India) Ltd.and Purity Tech Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Anr.
M/S MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 (2) (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22924 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84082&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal concluded that the artificial definition made by Lower Authorities with reference to gift and settlement was not appropriate. The Tribunal was of the opinion that for the purpose of Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act, there was no difference between gift and settlement and that in the instant case, the settlement made with the assessee's brother could not attract capital gains on this count. There are no reasons as to how the Tribunal came to such a conclusion.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHENNAI VERSUS SHRI. S. YOGARATHNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22923 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83107&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Substantial questions of law framed for consideration in this appeal were answered against the Revenue in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company as amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from the Assessment Year 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. ARCHEAN GRANITES PRIVATE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22922 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83108&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the audit objection may serve as information, the basis of which the Income Tax Officer can act, the ultimate action must depend directly and solely on the formation of belief by the Income Tax Officer on his own, where such information passed on to him by the audit that income has escaped assessment.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. FARIDA PRIME TANNERY PVT LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22921 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83109&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is expected to file his return of income along with his books and documents. It is for the Assessing Officer to consider the same in accordance with law and complete the assessment. The assessee is not there to advice the Assessing Officer as to how he should go about in assessing the income of the assessee, as it is the statutory duty of the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the Sale Deed dated 02.05.2008, is only the document, which is the subject matter of the assessment. This document was very much available with the Assessing Officer when he completed the assessment under Section 143(3), dated 05.12.2011.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 COIMBATORE. VERSUS SHRI. K.R. JAYARAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22920 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83111&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no colourable device involved in having two separate agreements for two entirely separate and distinct purposes.
SHIV RAJ GUPTA Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22919 (SC)
-
The Mumbai PO would fall within clause (e) of Article 5(4) of the DTAA, inasmuch as PO was solely an auxiliary office, meant to act as a liaison office between the assessee and ONGC.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) Vs M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22918 (SC)
-
Already having invoked powers u/s.245, Revenue cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount on the ground that the respondents may have a future demand against the petitioner arising out of the pending assessment orders.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Vs VODAFONE IDEA LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22917 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.