-
It is also an admitted fact that name of the assessee nowhere appeared in the said document albeit the name of Smt. Vineeta Chaurasia that she has entered into an agreement for sale of commercial property in Vasant Square Mall has been mentioned. Apart from that, the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that this addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that, firstly, the name of the assessee is not mentioned in the seized document.
DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22417 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83006&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of the attachment of asessee’s bank accounts and assessee’s debtors, the assessee is stated to be not in a position to perform these obligations. Given this situation, we are satisfied that this situation calls for our interference. In any case, even though we refrain from commenting upon merits of the case at this stage, we find that prima facie the assessee has an arguable case in appeal.
PANDHES INFRACON PVT LTD VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22416 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83005&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The satisfaction would be dependent on the approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is that only if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax accorded approval for prosecution than the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Income Tax could be considered and acted upon by sanctioning prosecution. However, if the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax were to refuse permission then the Commissioner of Income Tax though satisfied could not initiate any proceedings due to the non approval by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
M/S. PACE VISION VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BELGAUM.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22415 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82854&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Except last nine years, the property which comprises land and building was let out by the assessee for a long period. The assessee had earned income by way of rent and rental income so received by the assessee was offered for taxation as income from the house property. The assessee has shown the property in question as capital asset in its balance sheet. There is no material on record to hold that the aforesaid property was converted by the assessee as an item of stock in trade.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 (1) , VERSUS THIRUMALA VENKATESHWARA ESTATE AND AGENCIES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22414 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82855&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The present matter is not a case of mechanical reliance on circulars/office memorandums. It is a case where proof of identity of the loan depositors, capacity of the creditors to advance loans and genuineness of transaction is in serious dispute. Further, this Court finds that the stay application has been decided on merits and all the submissions made hereinabove by the petitioner have been considered by the statutory authorities below.
JITF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22413 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82856&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioners suffered an order of assessment in the year 2019. The petitioners preferred an appeal against such order of assessment. There is a stay petition pending also. The revenue authorities issued recovery notice on March 5, 2020. Revenue authorities received the recovery amount from the concerned banks. All these measures took place prior to the order dated March 20, 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
BANSHIHARI LARGE SIZED MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR., UDAYAN LARGE SIZED MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR., NAZIRPUR LARGE SIZED MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22412 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82858&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under Section 68, the onus is on the assessee to offer explanation where any sum is found credited in the books of account and where the assessee fails to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the source and nature of the amount of cash credits an inference may be drawn that the credit entries represent income taxable in the hands of the assessee.
M/S KESHARWANI SHEETALAYA SAHSAON ALLAHABAD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALLAHABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22411 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82859&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Vehicle was put to use on 31.03.2009 and in support of its contention, assessee has submitted copies of ledger before the lower authorities and respectfully following the aforesaid judgments, we allow claim of the assessee and this ground of the assessee is allowed and we direct assessing officer to allow the claim of depreciation. Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has two limbs one is where, inter alia, assessee has to deduct tax and the second where after deducting tax, inter alia, the assessee has to pay into Government Account.
SHRI SUBODH RAMANLAL DESAI VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-3 (1) , BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22410 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82973&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Trust has been given a certificate from the office of the Charity Commissioner after going through the Memorandum of Association and seeing the activities of the trust and trust is meant for deceased member of Rotary Club Family Members. As Rotary Club is carrying out charitable activities for the public at large as organizing the blood donation camp giving books to poor students and doing charity for orphanage etc.
ROTARY CLUB SOCIAL SECURITIES FUND BHAVNAGAR AYUSHYA CANCER HOSPITAL VERSUS DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22409 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82974&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the assessee has paid all the taxes due on the returned income including the demand raised in the assessment order before 30.09.2010, the assessee is mandated to file the return of income within the prescribed time limit. Since the assessee failed files the return of income within the prescribed time limit, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied under section 271F of the Act was rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
M/S. TAMIL NADU FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1) , CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22408 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82977&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Eligibility of deduction u/s. 80IAB is governed by the true character of lease rental income derived. The CBDT circular albeit in the context of S. 80IA(4-(iii) has expressed its concern on litigation towards taxability of lease income under the appropriate head and granted relief to the taxpayer for eligibility of deduction. The issue thus cannot be said to be totally free of any debate. On the contrary, the debate, if any, leans in favour of the assessee.
M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) (1) BANGALORE., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22407 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The entire payment by the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure and not merely 1/4th of payment towards non-competition fee as it does not bring in any capital asset and held that the payment is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act and directed the Assessing Officer to give appropriate relief after re-computing the income as per the direction of this Tribunal and modified the order of the Tribunal to the said extent. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIOINER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11 (2) , BANGALORE VERSUS M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD., (FORMALLY KNOWN AS M.S COMPAQ COMPUTER (INDIA) PVT. LTD.)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22406 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82850&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Clause (b) of Section 244A of the Act talks of all other cases than mentioned in clause (a) and (aa) for giving interest from the date of payment to the date on which the refund is granted. The refund of amount became due to the petitioner under the Act after finalisation of the assessment i.e. 21.1.2014 and the same was refunded on 4.7.2017, in such circumstances, the case is covered under clause (b) of Section 244A of the Act.
JIWAN KUMAR VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22405 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82851&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If any income is assessable under the head income from house property, it should be out of property let out or deemed to be let out for the relevant period. In this case, the property is neither let out nor vacant.
REDWOOD IT SERVICES P. LTD. VERSUS ITO-10 (2) (2) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22404 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82960&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As per amendment in section 2(15) of the Act, Yoga has also been included as a part of education which is also one of the object of the assessee in the instant case. If we see minutely the aims and objects of the assessee-company, then it can be inferred that the basic aims and objects of the assessee company are to provide educational, intellectual, physical and spiritual development of an individual, family, community and the nation by initiating, undertaking and supporting various projects and programs, which in our considered view, falls within the definition of education as prescribed u/s 2(15) of the Act, hence this ground of rejection is not tenable.
SANJHI SIKHIYA FOUNDATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22403 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82958&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In a recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar wherein it is held that wherein the returned income has been accepted u/s 153C and therefore, it is held that in such case, penalty cannot be imposed.
SAMTABEN R. MANGLANI, LAJWANTIBEN M. MANGLANI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22402 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82957&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As assessee is engaged in the business of development and export of software, providing CTI (Computer Telephonic Integration), system integration, IT consulting services to customers. The assessee has purchased the copyrighted software license from Acqueon Technologies Inc. USA of Acqueon AiQ and IVR connector as off-the-shelf software and used them to develop application as per the requirements of the customers.
M/S. SERVION GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -15, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22401 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82940&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tax audit report was filed alongwith return filed in response to show cause notice issued u/s.148 of the Act which means that the Assessing Officer had the benefit of tax audit report and no prejudice can said to have been caused for the Department on account of belated submission of tax audit report. We are of the considered opinion that levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act is not warranted.
SMT. HARICHANDRAN KALEESWARI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE RANGE 5 (1) CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22400 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82943&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A delay of the shortest period may be uncondonable due to unacceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a long period can be condoned, if the explanation is satisfactory. However, if no mala-fide can be attributed to the delay, that delay will be condonable. We find that the assessee has shifted from Surat to Banaras, therefore, the assessee has a reasonable cause for filing appeal in delay. Hence, delay is condoned.
ANURAGRAJI V. GOSWAMI, C/O. YOGESH B. SHAH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (1) , SURAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22399 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82945&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, considering the reasons as cited in the said application and also keeping in view principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). No claim shall be available for any allowances or expenditure of income referred to any section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C and section 69D from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards.
SHRI RAJESHKUMAR POPATBHAI GABANI, SURAT VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (2) (5), SURAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22398 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82947&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.