-
Action u/s 263 of the act is initiated for the issues which are already decided in the original assessment u/s 143 (3) of the act and not in reopened assessment. Therefore in such circumstances, if Ld. PCIT wants to touch any issue of the original assessment order, the time limit for passing the order us/ 263 of the act should run from the date of the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the act and not the subsequently reopened assessment order u/s 147 of the act.
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs Pr. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22524 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
The coronavirus should be considered a case of natural calamity and Force majeure clause maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure, also cites SC orders dated March 23rd and May 6th extending limitation period for filing appeals.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs JSW Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22523 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The AO overstepped his jurisdiction and commented on the third party assessee which is not permissible under the Act.
Glebe Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22522 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the assessee no more remains the owner of the equipment, how can it claim depreciation on the same. Under these circumstances depreciation cannot be postponed beyond the actual life/ ownership of the equipment of 3 years, which is also fortified by TRAI notification wherein the life of the STBs has been taken at 3 years and allows depreciation @ 60%.
M/s Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22521 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 37
-
Only the rental income should be charged to tax under income from house property and the income from maintenance services should be brought to tax under income from other sources after allowing benefit of deduction towards expenditure incurred on maintenance charges.
Jagatjit Industries Ltd Vs Dy. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22520 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is not possible on the part of the Addl.CIT to go through the orders in about more than 100 cases on the very same day and give approval. Even if such approval has been given, it can be said that the same is nothing but a technical formality without application of mind.
Uttarakhand Uthan Samiti Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22519 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 153A
-
At present, there is no necessity to go into the merits of the captioned stay application.
Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22518 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Capital contribution by the partners cannot be treated as income of the assessee and if the partners are not able to explain the sources for their investment, the AO can only make the addition in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the assessee firm.
Jayashree Anand Enterprises Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22517 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 69
-
Invocation of Rule 27 for challenging the decision of the CIT (A) on the legal ground was well within the scope of Rule 27.
SANJAY SAWHNEY Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22516 (HC-DELHI)
-
Ground relating to challenging the order passed by the Assessing officer for want of jurisdiction was taken before the ld CIT(A), however, it appears that the ld CIT(A) has wrongly read the ground relating to jurisdiction and limitation together and has dismissed both these grounds as not pressed. Given that this ground was taken by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and not adjudicated upon, the matter deserve to be set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to adjudicate the said ground of appeal after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN VERSUS INCOME TAX-OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22515 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83328&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee sold all the shares and incurred a huge loss and as per the records submitted before us, assessee has claimed it as the business loss considering the fact that assessee has treated the above shares which was sold during the year as stock-in-trade. As per the records brought to our notice by Ld. AR, it clearly indicates that all this information of conversion of shares into stock-in-trade were brought to the notice of the AO in the original assessment itself.
DCIT CIR 6 (1) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S AGARWAL TEXTILES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22514 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 271C provides that if any person fails to deduct whole or any part of the tax as required, then he shall be liable to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to the amount of tax which he has failed to deduct. Section 273B of the Act provides that notwithstanding the provisions contained under Section 271C, no penalty shall be imposable upon the person or the assessee for any failure referred to in the aforesaid provision if the person or the assessee concerned proves there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) , JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22513 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83329&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute that the assessee has supplied electrical goods to M/s Shri Om Sai Stones Industries vide sale bill no. 237 dated 24.05.2012 for a sum of ₹ 4,58,430/-. It is also not in dispute that the cash amount of ₹ 1 lac received earlier from M/s Shri Om Sai Stones Industries during the last quarter of the impugned financial year has been adjusted against the said sales and only the balance amount of ₹ 3,58,430/- has been received by the assessee.
SURESH KUMAR DAPKARA VERSUS THE ADD. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22512 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83330&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Infosys BPO Ltd. cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee company for the simple reason that the assessee company is engaged in rendering system integration, enterprise solutions and software development services to the clients of its Associated Enterprises (AE) and also to independent customers in the United Kingdom, the United State of America and others countries in Europe as well as India while being a subsidiary of Steria (UK). On the other hand Infosys BPO Ltd.
M/S. STERIA (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22511 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83331&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once there was no incriminating material, neither any such information was available with AO, then where is the question of roping such an addition or making such inquiry in the assessment proceedings. If there would have been any incriminating document pertaining to the alleged bank account found directly or indirectly linking the said bank account with the assessee during the course of search, then only the entire scope of inquiry for the purpose of assessment could have been made and if there is no such incriminating material or seized document, then ostensibly assessment has to be confined to the seized document relating to the assessee.
ANURAG DALMIA VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22510 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83333&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee being natural guardian of minor sons is obliged to protect the interest of the minors as per The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and thus could not have diverted sale proceed of shares held by minor sons to repay bank loan of Rs. 4.25 Cr availed by a ALEPL.
Shri K. Srikanth Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22509 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Assessee's erroneous treatment of income/loss under a different head in earlier years does not act as an estoppel on the assessee to claim it as assessable under the right head subsequently, if it is found that income was actually assessable under a different head.
M/s Anant Raj Limited Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22508 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since assessee was under bona fide and genuine belief that he was not required to sign consent waiver form and no incriminating material was found indicating assessee's direct or indirect involvement in opening bank account, there was reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty u/s 273B.
Anurag Dalmia Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22507 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(b)
-
The coverage under customs laws was very wide while we are dealing with 1961 Act read with 1962 Rules and coverage of the term computer software is restrictive to computer program which is recorded in any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device.
M/s. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22506 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
It would be grossly unfair and unjust to deny the assessee the credit of TDS where the corresponding income has been assessed in its hand.
M/s. Easylink Insurance Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22505 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.