-
When database access by itself does not result in taxation as royalty, such database access being coupled with software licence cannot bring the software consideration within the scope of royalty.
Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22916 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 28(v-a): There is a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for the loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. The compensation received for the loss of agency is a revenue receipt whereas the compensation attributable to a negative/ restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. Payment received as non-competition fee under a negative covenant was always treated as a capital receipt till AY 2003-2004. It is only w.e.f. 1-4-2003 that the said capital receipt is now made taxable u/s 28(v-a). It is well settled that a liability cannot be created retrospectively (All imp judgements referred)
Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22915 (SC) · Section S. 28(v-a)
-
A reading of the Board Resolution would show that the Project Office was established to coordinate and execute delivery documents in connection with construction of offshore platform modification of existing facilities for ONGC. Unfortunately, the ITAT relied upon only the first paragraph of the Board Resolution, and then jumped to the conclusion that the Mumbai office was for coordination and execution of the project itself. The finding, therefore, that the Mumbai office was not a mere liaison office, but was involved in the core activity of execution of the project itself is therefore clearly perverse.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI & ANR. VERSUS M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22914 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83106&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Use of the building is incidental to the main object of leasing of workstation by the assessee. As noted from the brief facts of the case that the assessee has given ground and first floor of the building on the rent to another party separately and income from which has been offered by the assessee under the head income from the house property and which has not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer.
M/S. TELEKON MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-25 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22913 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84074&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clearly, without any recorded reasons and without framing any substantial question of law on whether the said amount could be taxed under any other provision of the Income Tax Act, the High Court went ahead and held that the amount of INR 6.6 crores received by the assessee was received as part of the full value of sale consideration paid for transfer of shares – and not for handing over management and control of CDBL and is consequently not taxable under Section 28(ii)(a).
SHIV RAJ GUPTA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI-IV
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22912 (SC) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83105&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The list of QIBs to whom shares are issued, the shares are not issued to any of the aforesaid category. Thus QIBs, not being promoters, promoter group, subsidiaries and associates of the company would qualify as public.
Yes Bank Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22911 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Wrong mention of section would not vitiate the entire assessment. Moreover, the first appellate authority, at para 4.3 of his order, has also acknowledged this inadvertent error. No merit in this application moved by the assessee. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.
THE A.C.I.T CIRCLE 14 (2) NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S KMG ROLLING PVT LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22910 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84065&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) have taken a wrong view by holding that the assessee cannot grow tax-free income u/ss 10(34) and 10(35) of the Acts unless additional tax has been paid as per the provisions of Sections 115-0 and 115-R of the Act and as such the exemption claimed u/ss 10(34) and 10(35) is to be allowed only if the dividend income distributed as per the provisions of Sections 115-O and 115-R whereas, the conditions laid down u/s 115-O to avail the exemption u/s 10(34), is to be complied with at the level of venture capital undertaking and not at the stage when the investor, the assessee in this case, received the dividend income from VCF.
M/S JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AGENCY [JBIC] VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE 3 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22909 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84066&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled principle that the AO is required to make reasonable, sufficient and adequate enquiry of impugned issues during assessment proceedings and in case of no enquiry or insufficient or inadequate enquiry, Pr.CIT is empowered to revise the order holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. But if this proposition is evaluated in the facts and circumstances of the present case then, it is clearly discernible that the AO by way of notice u/s.142(1) dated 26.10.2015 and 30.7.2015 called the documents/information from the assessee which includes copy of the audited balance sheet, profit and loss account.
SUREKHA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. VERSUS PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22908 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84067&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The essence of the matter is to examine as to whether a particular expenditure/loss is deductible and not whether the same is recorded in the books of account. If a particular amount is deductible as per law, the same has to be allowed as deduction irrespective of the fact that it was not recorded in the books of account. It is further noticed that the assessee did not record such diminution of value of securities to the extent of ₹ 2.65 crores in its books of account so as to satisfy the RBI norms, which provide for valuing the securities as such without any diminution in their value at the year end.
M/S. VISHWAS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22907 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84068&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee is a construction company engaged in the construction of flats/residential units on the land owned by it without any contract with the customers for construction of flats/residential units. It is ample clear that the assessee company is consistently following revenue recognition method by adopting completed project method, wherein, the revenue is recognised at the time of sale of flats/residential units by way of registered sale deed in favour of the customers and advance from customer and work in progress is recognised at cost in the balance sheet.
HI-TECH ESTATES AND PROMOTERS PVT LTD. VERSUS PR. CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22906 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84069&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The manner of determination of quantum of deduction as provided under s.80IA(5) has since been clarified by the CBDT Circular No.1 of 2016 dated 15.02.2016 and is devoid of controversy any more. Having regard to the wide ranging controversies, the CBDT circular has given categorical interpretation on exercise of option of choosing initial assessment year referred to sub-section (5) of Section 80IA of the Act in favour of the assessee.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KHEDA VERSUS M/S. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL AND CO.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22905 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84070&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no sharing of knowledge or know-how or any technology to the assessee during the provision of Web Hosting Services as prescribed under Article 12(4) of the DTAA.
M/s. Esm Sys Pvt. Ltd. Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22904 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The term concealment of particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. The meaning of the term concealed /inaccurate has been discussed in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd Wherein it was held that the term inaccurate signifies deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. As such, the details/informations contained in the return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars.
SHRI PRANAV KUMAR RAJNIKANTBHAI KANKHARA SHRI RAM VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 (1) , JAMNAGAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22903 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84043&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In quantum appeals before the Tribunal in The Tribunal held that the assessee and KEPL Singapore is not associated enterprises (AE). It was held that no arms length price adjustment could be made on the transaction between assessee and KEPL.
KAYBEE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ITO-10 (1) (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22902 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84046&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As established beyond doubt that the re–opening of assessment is not on the basis of any tangible material but on a mere change of information. AO has re–opened the assessment after expiry of four years there is no allegation either in the assessment order or anywhere else stating that the escapement of income was due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts relating to his income truly and correctly. Accordingly, the condition enshrined in section 147 is not fulfilled. For the aforesaid reasons, we agree with Commissioner (Appeals) that the re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act in the present case is invalid.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–3, THANE VERSUS THE THANE BHARAT SAHAKARI BANK LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22901 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84050&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case in hand a show-cause notice for cancellation of lease was issued on 25.8.2013 and ultimately lease of plot was cancelled vide order dated 31.12.2015, therefore, we find force in the submission of assessee that after issuance of show-cause notice for cancellation of lease on which building was developed, the assessee was not entitled to let out occupied/constructed portion.
AKSHAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LTD. (ERSTWHILE M/S. AKSHAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX PVT. LTD.) VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15 (1) (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22900 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84051&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The income tax return filed by the assessee, which was available at the time of recording the reasons for reopening the assessment, did not show the status of non-resident. The recording of reasons cannot thus be faulted. Whatever claim is made subsequently is required to be dealt with in the subsequent proceeding but it will not vitiate the validity of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.
RENU T THARANI VERSUS DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4 (2) (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22899 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=84057&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The essence of the matter was to examine whether a particular expenditure was deductible and not whether the same was recorded in the books of account. If a particular amount was deductible as per law, the same had to be allowed as deduction irrespective of the fact that it was not recorded in the books of account.
M/s. Vishwas Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22898 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
On the principle of the Noscitur a sociis, the asset transferred under slump sale would fall under the sweep of this section, i.e., 5th proviso to Section 32(1), despite the word slump sale not used therein specifically.
ITO Vs M / s. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22897 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 32
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.