-
The conduct of the assessee, actual facts of each case and the surrounding circumstances are to be examined, on merits, and then a call is to be taken about as to whether the explanation of the assessee merits acceptance or not.
Renu T Tharani Vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22870 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - When interest was allowed as a deduction while computing income under the head 'Income from house property', “it would not be eligible to once again claim deduction of such interest in the garb of cost of acquisition of the property u/s 48 while computing the income under the head Capital gains at the time of sale of the property
M/s Shree Bal Properties & Finance P. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax -2
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22869 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 24(b)
-
For the taxability of service PE, the expenses of salary cost needs to be deducted from the business income generated by the PE in India, which in the present case would be NIL.
The DDIT Vs M/s. Yum! Restaurants (Asia) Pte. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22862 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is well settled in law that the tribunal is a fact finding authority and a decision on the facts of the tribunal can be gone into by the high court only if a question has been referred to it, which says that the finding of the tribunal is perverse.
SRI. C. RAMAIAH REDDY Vs CIT, DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22861 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 45
-
Reasons recorded by the AO that the assessee company received share capital from the entry operator proved to be incorrect based on the facts. Attributing the entry of ₹ 7,00,000 /- to the share capital of the company by the AO to the increased share capital of ₹ 99,00,000 /- found to be incorrect based on the details of the share capital received by the company from the five entities.
ADARSH FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., C/O M/S RADHESHYAM SHARMA AND CO. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22860 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83980&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Although both the parties i.e the assessee and the purchaser had executed a deed of correction wherein they had mentioned that the value of the property as per ready reckoner rate was ₹ 4,53,00,690/-, but then, we cannot remain oblivious of the fact that there is no material available on record from where it could be gathered that the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority at ₹ 5,53,35,670/- had been substituted by the aforesaid ready reckoner rate of ₹ 4,53,00,690/-. In sum and substance, there is nothing discernible from the records which would reveal that the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority had been revised at ₹ 4,53,00,690/-.
M/S SHREE BAL PROPERTIES & FINANCE P. LTD VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, MUMBAI, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2 (3) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22859 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83982&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The undisputed fact is that this is not the first year of business of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that the subsidiary companies of the assessee are also engaged in the same business of production, generation, transmission and distribution and supply of electricity.
M/S ACB [INDIA] POWER LTD. VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T. CIRCLE – 1 (2) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22858 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83983&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO held a bona fide belief that as the assessee had contravened the provisions of Sec. 80IB(10)(a)(iii), it was thus not entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80IB; and the A.O on the basis of verifications carried out in the course of the assessment proceedings for A.Y 2012-13, had gathered, that the built-up area of some of the residential units in the project viz.”Adityavardhan” was more than the prescribed area of 1000 sq. ft, which being in contravention of the norms prescribed in Sec. 80IB(10)(c) rendered the assessee ineligible for claim of deduction under the said statutory provision.
HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23 (1) (5) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22857 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83985&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find no reason to sustain the PCIT's foregoing stand that the assessee's income derived from its holiday homes has to be bifurcated on ownership basis (supra).
THE ELECTRO URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-12, KOLKATA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22856 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83987&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Both direct and indirect expenses were to be considered for the purpose of earning exempt income. In this case, there was no direct expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income. Hence, only the indirect/administrative expenses were to be considered for working out the disallowance.
Shri S. Ganesh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22855 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Clauses (iiihk) & (iiihl) of Section 80G(2) specifically excluded contribution to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund.
M/s. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22854 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 80G
-
While deciding identical issue in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2009-10 The Tribunal accepting assessee's claim has allowed the deduction claimed as revenue expenditure. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding assessee's appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11 In the orders referred to above. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decisions of the co-ordinate Bench (supra), we allow assessee's claim of deduction. Resultantly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Consequently, the depreciation allowed by the Assessing Officer on the expenditure claimed is also reversed.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-7 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LIMITED), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22853 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83953&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As is discernible from the assessment order for A.Y 2013-14, the A.O had disallowed 50% of the assessee's claim for car depreciation and car expenses primarily for the reason that he had not furnished any evidence with regard to maintenance of any log book. As the fact situation during the year under consideration in context of the aforesaid issue before us remains the same, therefore, after principally agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards claim for car depreciation and car expenses, we accept the alternative claim of the assessee and restrict the disallowance of car depreciation, car insurance expenses and car expenses to the extent of 50% of the claim raised by the assessee.
HARESH NATVARLAL SANGHAVI VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, THANE AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22852 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83956&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A payment made by a company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder is treated by cl. (e) to be included in the expression dividend. Consequently, the effect of cl. (e) of s. 2(22) is to broaden the ambit of the expression dividend by including certain payments which the company has made by way of a loan or advance or payments made on behalf of or for the individual benefit of a shareholder.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER – 15 (3) (2) ; MUMBAI VERSUS M/S VRISA INFOTECH PVT. LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22851 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83957&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the source of money lent is loan from another group company, group company received money from the assessee itself, the transactions is duly reflected in the balance sheets of respective companies. Even the assessing officer himself has stated that source of money lent to the assessee is the assessee itself.
SUPREME BUILD-CAP PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE–05, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22850 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83963&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the interest free funds are in excess of the investments, the presumption that arises is that interest free funds have been invested in investments which do not yield taxable income as held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we uphold the deletion of the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. Disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), CIT(A) has directed the AO to consider only those investments which have earned dividend during the year for the purpose of computation of disallowance under the Rules.
DCIT, CIRCLE-8 (2) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22849 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We observe from the order passed u/s.143(3) of the assessment year 2012-2013, there is no any single word found in regard to survey proceedings u/s.133A of the Act, whereas the documents were available with the same AO i.e. Ward-2(2), Balasore and the assessee accepted some discrepancy in stock and agreed to pay tax thereon.
M/S LAXMI NARAYAN JEWELLERY VERSUS ITO, WARD-2, BALASORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22848 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83966&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issue of allowability of deduction in respect of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health is squarely covered by the decision of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT AND DCIT Vs Maco Corporation (India) as considered the issue in regard to very same trust i.e. SGHPH and holds that prior to the date of donation under cancellation of registration has happened and there is absolutely no provision of withdrawal of recognition under section 35(1)(ii). Provisions of the Act are very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to the payee had been withdrawn subsequent to the date of contribution by the assessee. Hence no disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii).
M/S SPAN REALTORS VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 (2) , MAHARASHTRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22847 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83935&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee on learning about the fact that School of Human Genetics & Population Health was found to have indulged in ingenuine activities, had thus, in the return of income filed by him in compliance to Notice u/s 148, had in all fairness withdrawn the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) that was earlier raised by him in the Original return of income.
MR. SAMMY E. MAJOR VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 17 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22846 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83936&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is undisputed fact that the assessee has been granted a valid registration u/s 12AA of the Act which has never been revoked by the revenue authorities. The registration has been granted post-insertion of proviso to Sec.2(15) obviously after looking into the object of the assessee.
NATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS DCIT (E) -2 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22845 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83937&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.