-
Only those immovable properties which are held as capital assets and is in nature of land or building or both are only covered u/s 56(2)(vii). We agree with the contention of the ld AR that where the term property has been defined to mean a capital asset as so specified and where an immoveable property as so specified being land, building or both is not held as an capital asset, it will not be subject to the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. In the instant case, therefore, where the agricultural land doesn't qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset, provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked.
SH. PREM CHAND JAIN VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE- SAWAI MADHOPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22824 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83910&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue would be recognized by the assessee on commissioning of a plant, however, in the backdrop of the complex nature of its business certain expenditure would certainly be required to be incurred between the stage of commissioning of the plant and final acceptance of the same by its customer. Assessee had to carry out estimation of such future expenditure and create a provision for cost on the completed projects.
THYSSENKRUPP INDUTRIAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UHDE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 10 (3); MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22823 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83911&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Any sum credited to suspense account or interest payable account shall be deemed to be credited for the purpose of tax deduction at source. Therefore, if the individual account interest payments exceed ₹ 2500/- merely because they are credited to the different account than the account of depositors, TDS liability of the deductor cannot be eliminated. But, there has to be provision of interest of individual account where credited to the account of depositor or to interest payable account is more than ₹ 2500/- for the FY, then only tax is required to be deducted.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW VERSUS SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22822 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83912&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee paid the above sum towards VRS of certain employees of Calcutta unit. It is noticed that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the immediately succeeding assessment year. Vide order The Tribunal has decided it in favour of the assessee.
FOSECO INDIA LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 1 (2) , PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22821 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83915&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO in spite of having information in his possession, he has merely gone by the information received from DIT (I&CI) and shows non-application of mind on his part and failure on his part to carry out preliminary enquiry on receipt of such information and thus, the reasons so recorded and the very basis, that the assessee has not filed the return of income and therefore, the income on sale of property has escaped assessment, is vitiated in the instant case.
SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2 (2) , JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22820 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83916&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that Rule 8D of the Rules is not applicable for the year under consideration. However, some reasonable expenditure needs to be allowed for earning exempt income. The ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to 10% of the dividend income. In our considered opinion, restriction by the ld. CIT(A) seems to be reasonable and, therefore, no interference is called for. Ground No. 1 is accordingly, dismissed.
HCL COMNET SYSTEMS AND SERVICES LTD VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE – 12 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22819 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83896&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Miscellaneous receipts can be sub-grouped into three lots i.e. (i) the receipts covered by the earlier Tribunal's order, (ii) the receipts, assessee never claimed deduction, and, (iii) the business connected receipts or otherwise. So far as sub-group one is concerned, we find the receipts is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09.
LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR AND (VICE-VERSA) AND ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR VERSUS VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22818 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83897&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Foundation of Ophthalmic & Optometry Research Education Centre has held to the extent that even if there is no commencement of charitable activities, registration u/s 12AA of the Act cannot be denied because the statute does not prohibit or enjoin the Commissioner from registering a trust solely based upon its objects without any activity in case of a newly registered trust.
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI VERSUS CIT (EXEMPTION) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22817 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83898&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provision of expenses payable account is naturally shown under the head sundry creditors/ expenses payable/ liabilities etc in the balance sheet at the close of the year. On the first day of next year, this account of Expenses payable is credited to the respective Expenses account of the next year.
FISERV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22816 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83901&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is settled proposition of law that for the purpose of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the threshold condition i.e. genuineness of the activities is to be decided with the object clause of institution.
Bar Council of Delhi Vs CIT (Exemption)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22815 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 12AA
-
Coming to quantification of construction/improvement carried out by assessee on plot purchased, there is mention of of some construction in the year 2005-06 being new building of 1400 sq.ft RCC roofing and shed 500 sq.ft with AC sheet roofing in valuation report dated 06/12/2012 by SPR Associates, placed at page 14 to Annexure 1 in paper book, The valuation report values new building constructed by assessee at ₹ 1,000/- per sq.ft and ₹ 800/- per sq.ft for shed, approximately valuing at 14 lakhs and 4 lakhs respectively.
SHRI ADITYA B LINGARAJU VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - 6 (2) (1), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22814 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83882&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that under the limited scrutiny the Ld. A.O is required to keep his investigation and examination limited to the extent of the reasons for which limited scrutiny has been taken up. So his focus should be limited to the reasons but in such situation what is required from the A.O is to put best of his focus and pinpointed examination of information of the assessee so as to arrive at the correct income of the assessee. The file records should speak by itself that the A.O has given/delivered his best to justify that in the scrutiny for limited purpose, no stone is left unturned for the issues raised in the limited scrutiny case by way of in depth examination.
M/S. SANEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD VERSUS PR. CIT-2, BHOPAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22813 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83883&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
PCIT perused the assessment order and assessment records and found that the assessment order dated 21/12/2017, passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) was erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
M/S STAR GEMS AND JEWELRY VERSUS PCIT-16, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22812 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83884&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is the date of search that has to be considered to be the relevant date for the purpose of applying the amended provisions of Sec. 153C(1) of the Act. As such, in the case before us as the search proceedings were conducted on Cosmos group on 24.09.2014, therefore, the provisions of pre-amended Sec. 153C (i.e prior to amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015) would be applicable. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we vacate the view taken by the CIT(A) to the contrary that the post-amended Sec. 153C would applicable in the present case.
RIDDHI SIDDHI DEVELOPERS P. LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 6 (4) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22811 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83886&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the assessee has not separately maintained the books of accounts, separate ledger accounts are maintained and claiming deduction u/s 80IA separately for the income generated from the individual units each year. As per the Profit & Loss account, we observe that the assessee is computing profits separately, from wind mills and in a position to ascertain the income and expenditure separately for the windmills as well as for the assessee's business.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS DEVI SEA FOODS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22810 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83887&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As on 22nd of April 2019 the learned CIT – A passed two orders in case of the assessee for same assessment year 2013 – 14 in two subject matters i.e. one was against the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act and second was against the order passed u/s 154 of the act withdrawing MAT credit. On the legal advice, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was delayed by 30 days. According to us, delay was for the 'sufficient cause' and assessee did not derive any benefit by filing delayed appeal. Further, before ITAT, cause of justice must be served and pedantic approach should be abdicated.
FISERV INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22809 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83892&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because the assessee had disputed the assessment before the higher appellate forum, it does not deprive the right of the Revenue to rectify the assessment order or the tax demand raised against the assessee provided the action of the AO false within the parameters of Section 154 of the act.
Fiserv India Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22808 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 154
-
It is evident from the conduct of the assessee that the assessee was not intending to run a unit in Trump Hotel International himself, at no point of time has the assessee ever been engaged in running the Hotel Unit on his own. For all practical purposes the unit under consideration cannot be considered to be a business undertaking of the assessee.
Sh. Rohit Kapur Vs Add. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22807 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As evident from the conduct of the assessee that the assessee was not intending to run a unit in Trump Hotel International himself but rather he had purchased the unit while he was employed with an Oil Exploration Company in USA and he has given this unit for being run under the Hotel Operations and Maintenance Agreement to be run by the managing company.
SH. ROHIT KAPUR VERSUS ADD. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-8, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22806 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83818&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As relying on own case we restore the matter back to the file of learned AO on similar lines. The learned AO is directed to reappreciate the disallowance made by the assessee and invoke Rule 8D only if not satisfied with assessee's working of disallowance. It is made clear that if the disallowance is computed in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) then apart from the directions of Ld. CIT(A) to exclude certain investments, those investments which have not yielded any exempt income during the year under consideration would also be excluded as per the decision of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of assessee's appeal may be treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
VOLTAS LIMITED VERSUS ASST. CIT RANGE-8 (3) (2) , MUMBAI AND DCIT-8 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS VOLTAS LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22805 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83826&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.