-
The ld CIT(A) has returned a finding that possession of the said land was never handed over & land is still in the possession of appellant himself. Transferee, Shri Rajeev Singh has not taken possession of the property. Secondly, he has not discharged the sale consideration nor there is any willingness on his part to discharge the sale consideration as can be gauged by the fact that he himself has ordered and instructed his bank for stop-payment of cheques issued earlier by him towards the sale consideration in respect of both the sale deeds.
ACIT, CIRCLE-02, KOTA VERSUS SH. IJYARAJ SINGH AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22704 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83703&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had earned profit from F & O transactions in A.Y.2010-11 which was duly taxed by the ld. AO as regular business income. During the year, there is no change in the facts or there is no emergence of any fresh development in the case of the assessee company, enabling the ld AO to take a divergent view. Hence, revenue is not justified in taking a divergent view for the year under consideration alone.
M/S. MEGHA PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD. VERSUS ITO-4 (2) (4) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22703 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83704&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has rejected the book results of the assessee based on the facts and figured that the assessee after purchasing the products has sold the same within short span at a price lower than the purchase cost. However, there are certain undisputed facts that the books of accounts were subject to audit under companies Act and under section 44AB under Income Tax Act. As per the assessee the goods were of poor/inferior quality, therefore the same were sold at a lower price. The ld. AR in support of his contention drew our attention on page 38 of the paper book.
M/S. PANCHSHIL EXIM PVT. LTD. VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22702 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83678&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are of the view that the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of CAE Flight Training (I) Pvt. Ltd. supports the plea of the assessee for allowing deduction on interest paid on CCDs held that the fact that the RBI under its Foreign Direct Investment Policy mandates conversion of debentures into equity and such mandate will not make any difference to the allowability of interest on debentures u/s. 36(1)(iii).
IMS HEALTH ANALYTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. [FORMERLY IMS HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD. SINCE MERGED] VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22701 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83680&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA, then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year for which assessment proceedings are pending before the assessing officer as on the date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year. It has to be held that an assessment proceeding which is pending in appeal before appellate authority should be deemed to be 'assessment proceedings pending before Assessing Officer' within meaning of that term as envisaged under proviso to section 12A(2).
INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (IMC) VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22700 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83681&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It should be proved that there existed reasonable and acceptable cause for not accepting the loans or deposits through crossed cheques or demand drafts. It was found that the mere proof regarding genuineness of the transaction or the intention in accepting the amounts in cash or that there was no attempt to induct black money into the business etc. cannot be considered as a reasonable cause or as compelling circumstances provided under Section 273B to avoid the penal action contemplated u/s 271D, with respect to violation of the provisions contained under Section 269SS.
N.S.S. KARAYOGAM VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22699 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83008&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is axiomatic that property sold is referred to as original asset and the original asset is prescribed as buildings and lands appurtenant thereto and being a residential house. The expression a residential house therefore, includes building or lands appurtenant thereto. It cannot be construed as one residential house. It is well settled in law that an Amending Act may be purely clarificatory in nature intended to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act, which was already implicit.
ARUN K THIAGARAJAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) , THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22698 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83014&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
While interpreting Section 54F has held that provisions of Section 54F is a beneficial provision for promoting construction of residential houses and has to be construed liberally. Kerala, Delhi, Allahabad, Calcutta and Hyderabad High Courts have taken a view that usage of the property has to be considered in determining whether it is a residential property or a commercial property and Madras High Court in C.H.KESVA RAO has held that expression residence implies some sought of permanency and cannot be equated to the expression temporary stay as a lodger.
SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY C/O NAVIN ARCHITECT PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 11 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22697 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83015&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear that the satisfaction note u/s.153C was based on certain seized documents found during the course of search and seizure action initiated in Kalra Group cases/Consortium Securities Pvt. Ltd.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. REALTECH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22696 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83663&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Assessing officer has issued a show-cause as to why penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) may not be initiated in respect of such investment, however, he has not issued any show-cause for invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act or has called for any explanation of the assessee regarding the nature and source of such investment. In fact, the assessment order so passed by the Assessing officer is silent about invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act.
THE ACIT, CIRCLE-02, ALWAR VERSUS SHRI SUDESH KUMAR GUPTA PROP. M/S SALASAR TEXTILES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22695 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83664&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
MCX Stock exchange Ltd is a recognized stock exchange and M/s Godavari Exim Pvt Ltd was a member of MCX Stock exchange Ltd, therefore assessee`s currency derivative transactions are covered by exception clause (d) of section 43(5) of the Act, hence loss incurred by the assessee to the tune in respect of currency derivative is not speculation loss, therefore order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) dated 02.11.2016 is not erroneous.
SHETH COMMERCIAL CO VERSUS PR. CIT-14, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22694 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83668&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No disallowance of expenditure is warranted by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act when no exempt income is received by the taxpayer during the year under consideration. Thus, on this short reasoning alone that no disallowance of expenditure incurred can be made by invoking provisions of Section 14A of the 1961 Act whence the tax-payer has not received any exempt income during the year under consideration, we dismiss the grounds raised by Revenue w.r.t. disallowances made u/s 14A of the 1961 Act and uphold decision of learned CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of expenditure.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5 (1) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. REPCO HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22693 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83671&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in own case if there is any short-fall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee could be declared to be an assessee in default under section 201, but no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia).
ACIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S UCO BANK
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22692 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83672&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The AO by issuing penalty notice u/s. 271B has not spelt out what was the fault for which the assessee is being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Since the AO has not struck down the irrelevant portion/fault which is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice is vague and therefore, bad in law.
NORTH EASTERN CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-1 (2) , DIBRUGARH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22691 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83674&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessment order did not record any satisfaction as to for which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act the penalty proceedings have been initiated. The A.O. merely mentioned at the bottom of the assessment order after computing the income that “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been initiated separately.” Thus there is a violation of the Law in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any justification to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act against the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.
SHRI RAJ KUMAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-62 (2), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22690 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83645&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the trading liability or the expenditure or deduction was claimed by the assessee in respect of interest paid on the OCC loan. In respect of principal amount, though the assessee has gained the benefit by way of one time settlement the same cannot be brought to tax u/s 41(1) because the OCC loan represents the principal which was never claimed as expenditure. AO also did not make out a case that the principal amount was debited to the Profit & Loss account in the earlier years.
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 SRIKAKULAM VERSUS M/S SRI VASAVI POLYMERS P. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22689 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83648&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case apparently, AE has not provided any capital to the appellant on which income is earned. It is a corporate guarantee, being a surety to the lender bank of the appellant that, if in a case, in future, the appellant fails to pay the due amount owed to those lenders, the Netherland Company will pay to those lenders. Thus, there was promise to reimburse the amount to those lenders on happening of an event i.e. failure of payments by the appellant of the dues owed to the lenders and lenders invoking the guarantee issued by the Netherlands company in favour of those lenders.
LEASE PLAN INDIA PVT. LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-4 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22688 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83653&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deciding the issue in favour of the assessee in the said case where the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of ESOP in profit and loss account was deleted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD, VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-13 (1), NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22687 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83656&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Genuineness of the trade payables or creditors has to be examined in the year in which they originate and that unless the liability becomes unenforceable or is written off by the assessee or is given up by the other party or something is brought on record that there is cessation of liability, the same cannot be brought to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act.
M/S. NAMA PROPERTIES LTD HYDERABAD VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22686 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83635&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The own fund of the assessee exceeds the amount of investment. Accordingly presumption can be drawn that the borrowed fund was not utilised for such investments. Accordingly there cannot be any disallowance of any interest expenses in view of PCIT v. Shreno Ltd. held that if the assessee can demonstrate availability of surplus interest free funds for making investment generating tax free income, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act would not be justified.
GUJARAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. VERSUS ACIT GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22685 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83638&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.