-
ITAT - AO in all circumstances is supposed to provide the complete reasons for reopening to the assessee. Reassessment proceedings invalid for furnishing incomplete reasons.
Wimco Seedlings Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22744 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - No Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) on commercial mortgages/loans. Deduction available only on short term housing-loan.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Repco Home Finance Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22743 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 36(1)(viii)
-
ITAT - Levy u/s 234E is mandatory in nature and the A.O. has no discretion to take its own decision. Also 'Reasonable cause' is no ground for deleting levy.
Block Development Officer Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22742 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 234E
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s.271B for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB as the question of audit doesn't arise where books of accounts not maintained.
Sh. Mohit Garg Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22741 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271B
-
ITAT - running transactions under a current account between holding and subsidiary transactions not under deemed dividend ambit u/s 2(22)(e).
Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22740 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Mere passive nature of income can't be a sole criteria for disallowance of expenses u/s.57 against interest income.
ACIT Vs Sh. Ijyaraj Singh
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22739 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 57
-
ITAT - Commencement of business - Assessee had not only set up its business but had also commenced its business during the previous year itself by making investment in purchase of land, income from FDRs out of surplus money is not taxable as income from other sources and expenses incurred by assessee for the purpose of setting up its business allowed.
Jindal Realty Pvt Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22738 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Since assessee had computed profits separately from windmills and was in a position to ascertain the income and expenditure separately for the windmills, sale of windmills, a 'separate' undertaking for Slump-Sale purposes u/s.50B.
Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Devi Sea Foods Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22737 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 50B
-
As decided in own case Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, which was inserted by Finance Act, 2008, was directed to prevent the unholy practice of pure trade, commerce and business entities from masking their activities and portraying them in the garb of an activity in the object of a general public utility but was not designed to hit at those institutions, which had the advancement of the objects of general public utility at their hearts and were charity institutions.
ITO (E) , TRUST WARD-1 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS ALL INDIA FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY, NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22736 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83721&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the assessment order and the details filed by the assessee before the AO, in reply to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings demonstrate that this is not a case of lack of enquiry as stated by the ld. Pr. CIT in the last paragraph of his order. This statement is factually incorrect. AO has called for information on the claim of deduction of expenditure made by the assessee and in response thereto, the assessee has filed voluminous details. Payments were made on receipt of claim bills through banking channels. Tax was also deducted at source from these payments.
SKAN ENTERPRISE VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22735 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83722&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee since beginning of the re-assessment proceedings have denied to have paid any amount to the Medical College. Assessee in his explanation in writing as well as affidavit has affirmed that he has not paid any amount for admission of his daughter to MBBS Course because of the losses suffered by him in the business. Further explained that amount of admission fees was paid by his brothers on behalf of his daughter which is supported by documentary evidences, though the same were not accepted by the Revenue. The daughter of the assessee has also owned-up that amount in question have been paid through her uncle for admission to the Medical College.
SHRI RAJINDER SINGH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 42 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22734 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83724&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of SSA'S Emerald Meadows Where the SLP filed by the Revenue has been dismissed Is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee.
DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI VERSUS METRO TYRES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22733 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83728&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has not pointed out any distinguishable facts, therefore, no infirmity is found with regard to reopening of the assessment. Further, the A.O. has recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment based on material collected during the course of search operation in the case of Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain. Therefore, reliable and cogent evidences were found during the course of search and such information was considered genuine on which A.O. formed his opinion for reopening of the assessment, therefore, reopening of the assessment is valid in the matter in issue.
M/S. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15 (1) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22732 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83729&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The ledger account of the subsidiary company in assessment year under appeal also clearly reveals that it is the assessee company who have given the amount mostly to the subsidiary company which have been returned to the subsidiary company by the assessee company. Therefore, on such facts when the Revenue did not dispute the transactions in the current account between the assessee company and the subsidiary company in earlier as well as in subsequent year and the assessee company on most of the occasions have made payment to the subsidiary company, which have been returned by assessee company for business purposes, there was no reason to apply provisions of Section 2(22)(e).
M/S. EXOTICA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 8 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22731 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83730&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In case of important pan India issues of far reaching consequence, it is desirable to have the benefit of arguments from stakeholders in different part of the country.
Tata Education and Development Trust vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22730 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2A)
-
ITAT - Penalty u/s.271A for non-maintenance of books of account u/s.44AA justified even though assessee was covered u/s. 44AA(2)(i) and although the assessee was not supposed to maintain specified books of account as mentioned in Rule 6F.
Smt. Sanghamitra Pattnaik Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22729 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · Sections 44AA, 271A
-
ITAT - Where interest payable to individual depositor was less than Rs. 2500/- then no TDS u/s 194A applicable on “provision of interest payable to depositors” .
The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22728 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 194A
-
ITAT - Guarantee fee to Dutch holding co. is neither interest under Article 11 of the India-Netherlands DTAA nor Fees for Technical Services [FTS] under Article 12 of the DTAA. TDS u/s. 195 is not applicable.
Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22727 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Valuation of shares for Sec. 56(2)(viib) - AO can scrutinize the valuation report and he can determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling a determination from an independent valuer to confront the assessee but the basis has to be DCF method and he cannot change the method of valuation which has been opted by the assessee.
VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22726 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
ITAT - Sec.10A deduction granted on TP-adjustment in respect to enhanced income pursuant to MAP resolution.
M/s. Dell International Services India Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22725 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.