-
As decided in own case Revenue received by the assessee from offshore supply of goods to ONGC could not be taxed in India. We thus finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration uphold the same to the said extent. If the service provider does not make available the technical knowledge, experience, skill know how or process etc., then the consideration received for rendering of such services cannot be characterised as royalty for the purpose of Article XII(3)(g) of India-Australia DTAA.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -2 (1) (1) MUMBAI VERSUS CAMERON AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD. C/O PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22624 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83480&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As per Section 144C of the Act, it is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to pass draft Assessment Order. But instead of that, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.10.2019 merely captioned the final Assessment Order as Draft Assessment Order along with issuance of notices under Section 156 and 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which means a final Assessment order u/s 144C was passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 144C.
NIKON INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE-3 (1) GURGAON, HARYANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22623 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83481&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Due to the prevailing situation of the pandemic COVID-19 and Resolution of the Bar Counsel of West Bengal directing the lawyers not to appear in any judicial proceedings, none of the Counsel are present to assist the Court.
SANJAY JHUNJHUNWALA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22622 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The AO while considering the stay application has to act as a quasi-judicial authority, which means that he has to apply his mind to all relevant factors and thereafter, take a decision which is just, fair and reasonable.
Mansukhlal Amritlal Modi Vs The Income Tax Officer Ward
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22621 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Deductions u/s. 10A/10B have to be made while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI.
M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22620 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10B
-
Keeping in mind the fact that petitioner was the main person controlling/ directing affairs of the group within and outside India and there is large scale tax evasion and investigation is still in progress and there is a strong apprehension that petitioner may not return and, thus, will not be available for investigation, he cannot be granted permission to travel abroad at this stage.
Piyoosh Kumar Goyal Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22619 (HC-DELHI)
-
No appeal to be time barred in the wake of Coronavirus shutdown of.
IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22618 (SC)
-
If the service utilized by the petitioner abroad was for preexisting business in Indonesia, the petitioner could have legitimately taken benefit of exception carved in Sec. 9(1)(vii)(b).
Shriram Capital Limited Vs The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22617 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There is no provision for levying capital gains on consideration received by the partner for reduction in the share in the partnership firm.
Anik Industries Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22616 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee's case falls under 55(2)(b) of the Act, wherein assessee is entitled to substitute the actual cost of acquisition with fair market value as on 01/04/1981.
Piramal Enterprises Limited Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22615 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 55(2)(b)
-
Raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, the same cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income just because the AO did not accept the interpretation, such an interpretation is not rendered incorrect.
Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV Vs Asst DIT (IT)2(2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22614 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
The right to file a revised return of income does not lapse with the issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a completion of assessment
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s. Padma Logistics & Khanij Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22613 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 143(1)
-
CIT(A) has taken care of the TDS issue and the assessee has not preferred to challenge the action of Ld. CIT(A) which crystallizes. Therefore, the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO to disallow the TDS credit claimed in respect of the retention money not shown as income by the assessee in the revised return and to allow it in the year in which the assessee declares retention money as its income takes care of the TDS credit even if erroneously claimed by the assessee in respect of the retention money.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. EMC LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22612 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83451&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The roaming charges paid by the appellant to other telecom companies are not covered under fees for technical services and out of the purview of TDS provision of 194J.
THE DY. CIT (TDS) -2 (3) MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. VODAFONE INDIA LTD., MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22611 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83461&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reasons recorded by the AO that the assessee was beneficiary by way of CCM in derivative transactions was factually incorrect. This shows non application of mind by the I.T.O to the information received by the AO from the ADIT (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Ahmedabad. The law requires that the Assessing Officer prima facie applies his mind to the information received, prior to forming a reasonable belief, that income subject to tax has escaped assessment and thereafter record reasons. When reasons are based on wrong facts, which were not verified, then it is a clear case of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the material received.
AEREO DEALCOMM PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 (3) , KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22610 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83456&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
This case are covered by the decision of this Court passed in The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. M/s Adesh Foundation (Regd.) wherein held why should a management, in no dearth of funds, risk its’ reputation and, rather, even the future of its’ institution, by asking for such ill gotten money? Clearly, we are unable to regard the present case as one of ‘distinct possibility’ i.e., the test or the threshold which, in our view, must characterize the impugned transactions of donations which the applicant-appellant targets while seeking benefit u/s. 80G(5), so as to oust its’ case for being a eligible for approval thereunder.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS M/S ADESH FOUNDATION (REGD.)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22609 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82942&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the petitioner pointed out that the tax had been paid, the respondents passed yet another rectification order dated 16th August, 2019 allowing the credit of ‘Self Assessment Tax’ of ₹ 1,32,860/-, but this time raised a fresh demand by adding back an amount donated by the petitioner. When the petitioner pointed out that the donated amount had already been added back by him in his return, the respondents uploaded the very first order / intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 20th November, 2017 whereby the addition in income on account of donation was deleted, but credit of TDS amount of ₹ 37,100/- was once again denied.
AVADH BIHARI KAUSHIK VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22608 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82943&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner states that the petitioner has been forced to stay in India due to confiscation of his passport initially by the CBI and later on due to its deposit with the trial court. He points out that the passport of the petitioner is still lying deposited with the trial court.
SANJAY JHUNJHUNWALA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22607 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82944&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec.45(3) applies only where the partner has transferred the property by way of capital contribution or otherwise to partnership firm and the firm has recorded the said amount of contribution in its books of accounts, the same may be treated as transfer and chargeable to tax.
Raju Choudhary Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22606 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 45(3)
-
Once the business has been set up even though in an individual sole propertership capacity and thereafter, where the assessee wishes to pursue higher studies with an objective of gaining enhanced knowledge which will eventually help him in advancement of his business, one may argue that the expenditure has the nexus with his business and is thus a business expenditure which was not the case herein.
Shri Harshvardhan Johari Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22605 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 37(1)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.