-
The finding of the Tribunal that the amount received by the assessee from his purchaser cannot be termed as interest because there is no finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax as to the rate of interest, is a finding of fact. Also the value of the said item is far less than the value for which the appeals can be filed before this Court by the Department.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD VERSUS SRI SIVA RAMAKRISHNA MULPURI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22457 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82897&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Property is admittedly mortgaged with Catholic Syrian Bank. It is also not in dispute that one of the assessee Smt. Muragasamy Lalitha was suffering from Kidney failure. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the property could not be sold for the market rate may have some justification.
SMT. MURUGASAMY LALITHA, G. GUNASEKARAN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) , TIRUPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22456 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, what was received by the assessee was only share of income from the society. The income of the society was taxed separately in the hands of the society. CIT(A) also has given a finding that the income should be taxed in the hands of the society only but not in the hands of individual members.
MARNI PRASUNA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 KAKINADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22455 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83131&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though he Ld. A.R. contends that the parent company has refused to reimburse the payments made to the employees, yet no document was produced before tax authorities or before us in support of the said claim. Hence, in our view, the assessee has failed to substantiate as to why the advances amount was written off, particularly under the fact that the same is recoverable from its parent company. We also notice from the assessment order that the parent company has not reimbursed the amount only on account of change of policy of the parent company.
TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (ERSTWHILE TEKTRONIX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-7 (1) (1) BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22454 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83133&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A bare perusal of the response filed on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to the notice u/s 142(1) calling upon the petitioner as to why his income should not be treated as income from business would reveal that no objection worth the name in relation to the jurisdiction was raised. The response was confined only to the question raised and based on that the AO by exhaustively dealing with the material available before him and dealing with the limited issues raised in reply, passed the assessment order.
DINESH BOHRA S/O SOMAN RAJ BOHRA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN OF CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22453 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82887&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the impugned summons shows that apart from asking the assessee to be present on a particular day, the Assistant Commissioner also directed the assessee not to depart from the premises till he grants permission to do so. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned summons to the extent of asking the assessee to be present for unlimited period till the time he obtains permission from the Assistant Commissioner, is highly unreasonable.
SRI NAVAL KISHORE KHAITAN, VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VISAKHAPATNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22452 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82888&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is apparent that the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act does not specifically disclose the charge against the Assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, which is sine-quo-non for issuance of show-cause notice and for want of such particulars.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELAGAVI. VERSUS M/S. RYATARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22451 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82890&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The reassessment of the total income of the completed assessments have to be made taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search and the income that escaped assessments are required to be clubbed together with the total income determined in the original assessment and assessed as the total income.
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1) , NAGPUR VERSUS GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22450 (ITAT-NAGPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83109&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of section 48 of the Act does not refer to take the fair market value as the sale consideration.
DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT VERSUS SHRI HITESH MANUSUKHLAL BAGDAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22449 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83111&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Undertaking in respect of which deduction has been claimed u/s 80IC falls in the specified Industrial area as per Notification No. 177/2004 dated 28-06-2004 issued by the CBDT in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Central Government for the state of Uttaranchal. Apparently, the said notification was not brought to the notice of ld CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld CIT(A) has denied the deduction under section 80IC(2)(a)(ii).
SHRI KARAN RAWAT VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-5 (3) , JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22448 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83118&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has estimated the gross profit rate of 5% as against 1.76% without even rejecting the books of accounts so maintained by the assessee. Even where the complete books of accounts could not be produced for verification and the assessee has only produced copy of audited financial statements along with audit report, where the figures of sales and purchases have been accepted and in absence of opening and closing stock, we find that there cannot be a case of deemed rejection of books of accounts and estimation of gross profit rate.
PAPPU QURESHI VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-4 (5) , JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22447 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83121&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
This is only a factual verification to be made by the Ld.AO from the records of the earlier years and decide the availability of business loss or unabsorbed depreciation for the purpose of reduction while computing book profit U/s.115JB. AO is directed to do so in accordance with law. Hence, the direction of the Ld.CIT in this regard is hereby upheld with all issues left open for the assessee to present with necessary evidences before the Ld.AO.
M/S. TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE ACIT, COMPANY CIRCLE – III (1) , CHENNAI – 34.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22446 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83090&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the reading of aforesaid provisions of Section 15(a) of the Act, it could be concluded that the salary is always taxable on accrual basis. Even as per Provisions of Section 9(1)(ii) which states that income deemed to accrue or arise in India, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India, only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India.
SHRI PAUL XAVIER ANTONY SAMY VERSUS THE ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2 (1) , CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22445 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83092&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Registration under section 12AA cannot be refused on the ground that trust has not commenced the charitable or religious activity. Question of exemption of the application of the income received by way of the donation being a separate issue might be examined in assessment proceeding of relevant years.
MARIAM EDUCATION SOCIETY VERSUS CIT (EXEMPTION) , GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22444 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83103&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the entire reasons recorded there is not even a whisper that there is any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It being an admitted position that the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in a case where a scrutiny assessment has been made u/s 143(3) it was incumbent upon the AO to record, in the reasons itself, as to whether there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS M/S. GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22443 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82883&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
An identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by this Bench of ITAT in assessee’s own case wherein rightly allowed the assessee’s appeal following the order of the I .T.A.T. in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10. We therefore find no reason to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) holding the technical knowhow expenses as revenue in nature.
THE DCIT CC-II, SECTOR 17E CHANDIGARH VERSUS M/S STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22442 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83074&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO neither in the assessment order nor in the assessment proceedings has stated that he has sought and has been granted any approval by the appropriate authority for converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny or travelling beyond the matter for which the matter was initially selected for limited scrutiny.
SHRI SITA RAM SWAMI, C/O CA VINOD KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 4 (5) , JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22441 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83075&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision for submission of audit report along with return are not mandatory and that the audit report can be entertained during the assessment proceedings.
M/S R.R. LAMPS VERSUS DY CIT, CIRCLE, PARWANOO (HP)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22440 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83080&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the original jurisdiction of the AO is ITO Wad 6(2)(2), Bangalore, who issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.08.2015 fixing the case for hearing on 15th September, 2015. Assessment records were transferred vide order u/s 129 of the Act, to the ITO Ward 6(2)(3), Bangalore, and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act dated 06.10.2015 was issued and served on the assessee.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (2) (3) BENGALURU. VERSUS SRI. P.N. KRISHNAMURTHY AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22439 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83083&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
By virtue of the AGPA dt.29-11-2006, the assessee has parted with his right in the property because he had received the entire sale consideration as agreed to between both the parties and has also handedover the vacant possession of the property to the Vendee therein. It is also stated therein that the GPA is given to the Vendee for the convenience of the purchaser for doing the necessary acts and things on behalf of the Vendor and the Vendee therein.
SAMA OM REDDY, HYDERABAD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8 (2) , HYDERABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22438 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83084&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.