-
It is a settled law that the deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act will be allowable even if no income is earned by the assessee u/s. 56 of the Act. The language of section 57(iii) of the act does not anywhere specifies that any income should have been earned as a result of the expenditure incurred.
Suresh Chand Agarwal Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22604 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 57(iii)
-
There is no restriction imposed upon the Ld. CIT (A), like in the provisions of section 264 of the Act, for not deciding the issue against the assessment order in a situation where the assessee has made a revisionary application under section 264 of the Act.
Digjam Limited Vs The Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22603 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · Section 264
-
Services of corporate guarantee by the assessee not being in the nature of services of managerial, technical or consultancy, the corporate guarantee fee received by the assessee cannot be termed as fee for technical services either under the section 9(1)(vii) or under article of the DTAA.
M/s. JCDecaux S.A. Vs ACIT, DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22602 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since assessee miserably failed to inform the office of Ld. CIT(A) about the change of address and now assessee cannot plead that the order was not served as well as notices were not served.
Kale Entertainment & Resorts Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22601 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When it came to the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act, such a notice does not specify whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, against which the assessee had to defend itself.
Deloitte Haskins & Sells Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22600 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 271(1)(c), 274
-
The attitude of assessee is always to avoid the authorities and more so, the assessee is not vigilant about his own cause.
Daryapur Shetkari Sahakari Ginning & Pressing Factory Ltd. Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22599 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
-
Wealth tax payable is certainly an ascertained liability, hence, cannot be treated as unascertained liability.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22598 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 115JB
-
It is not proper to say that if the deduction is refused in the first year of employment of the new employee then for the next two succeeding Assessment Years also, the benefit of deduction will not be available. Such an approach defeats the very purpose for which deduction u/s.80JJAA of the Act is allowed for three consecutive Assessment years.
Texas Instruments (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22597 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 80JJAA
-
The trust is belonging to Escorts Ltd , it is the settlor and it is the beneficiary, that does not mean that it is the trustee also. AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that Escorts Limited is the trustee of the assessee. Therefore, the allegation of ld AO that Escorts Limited is also the trustee is devoid of any merit and based on mere conjectures and surmises. Further the sole beneficiary is Escorts Limited and Settlor of the trustis Escorts Limited is the major reason why the ld AO is refusing to recognize the above trust.
ESCORTS BENEFIT AND WELFARE TRUST VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (3) , FARIDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22596 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83426&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO cannot reject the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee on the ground that such a disallowance under rule 8D will be more; that's putting cart before the horse. Quite to the contrary, an AO can resort to rule 8D only when, as per the prescription of Section 14A(2) “the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act”.
TATA INDUSTRIES LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (3) (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22595 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83427&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the activities carried out by the assessee are visualized Assessee is not engaged in any other activity other than education. Therefore, for this reason, we are of the view and hold so that the learned CIT – E is not correct in holding that assessee is not engaged in educational activities covered under section 2 (15) of the Act.
NIIT FOUNDATION VERSUS CIT (E) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22594 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Geographical difference, by itself, does not render an independent transaction uncomparable with controlled transaction. Geographical location, by itself, is not an important factor for deciding comparability of an uncontrolled transaction, its importance lies in being one of the factors which could affect the market conditions in which respective parties operate.
MOTT MACDONALD PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR TO MOTT MACDONALD CONSULTANTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22593 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83430&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case in hand, a perusal of the report of the government valuer reveals that the valuer has taken the cost of construction / Fair market value as on 31.8.2006. It is not the case of the valuer that the building was newly constructed on the date, rather, the valuer has mentioned categorically that the date of construction is not known. He even has failed to estimate the age of the building as on the date of valuation.
M/S HOTEL OAK VALLEY RESIDENCY VERSUS THE ITO, DALHOUSIE AT BANIKHET.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22592 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83434&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee herein is the distributor of software licenses of its AE. Hence there should not be any dispute that core technical problems could only be resolved by its AE. Unless proper and appropriate maintenance services are provided to its customers, it would be difficult to market the software licences. There is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the distribution of software licenses and their maintenance are inter-linked. Accordingly, we are inclined to agree with the contentions of the assessee.
PARAMETRICS TECHNOLOGY (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22591 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83437&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Had the principal amounts been paid promptly to the petitioners in terms of Section 269UG(1), it is the petitioners who would have got the benefit of the interest on the said amounts, in fact more, considering the delay in making the payments from 30.09.1994 to 21.07.1995.
Desiree M. Thakur and another Vs The Appropriate Authority and another
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22590 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
As is apparent on a plain reading of the reasons recorded, while the Assessing Officer has information that M/s JP Infrastructure Limited has advanced unsecured loans as referred to therein to its sister concerns, viz. Gujarat Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Aryan Arcade Pvt. Ltd., there is no information to the effect that such payment was made for the benefit of the petitioner.
Jayesh T Kotak Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22589 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
It is open to the statutory authorities to grant relief to deposit an amount lesser than 20% if the facts of the case so warrant.
JINDAL ITF LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22588 (HC-DELHI)
-
The pharmacy store of the assessee was ancillary to the main object of running the hospital and therefore income accrued therefrom was incidental to the dominant object of running a hospital.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemption) Vs The National Health and Education Society
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22587 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 11(4A)
-
The notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show nondisclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22586 (SC)
-
Addition of the aforesaid amounts would amount to double addition.
Sarita Tyagi Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22585 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.