-
If the delay is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay even beyond the time limit laid down in 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A). We, considering the facts and circumstances and the stay petition filed by the assessee, hold that the delay in non-disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.
M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) (2) , BANGALORE., THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22397 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82948&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee was paying medical reimbursement as a component of the monthly payment to the employee and later claiming that it was not perquisite to the extent of ₹ 15,000, the same had to be considered as salary and not exempt perquisite. The reasoning is the same that the payment should not precede the actually incurring of the expenses and it should be only by way of reimbursement. The grievance of the assessee is that there should not be any deduction of TDS on reimbursement of medical allowance and charging of interest thereon.
BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, ROURKELA, SHRI PRAHALLAD BEHERA VERSUS ITO (TDS) , ROURKELA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22396 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82949&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Concrete Pump etc. have been fitted by the assessee as per his own convenience but the same cannot be said to be a part of the commercial vehicle, whereas, the Chassis fitted on the vehicle is a part and parcel of the vehicle. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee of depreciation @ 40% on Concrete Pump and other related equipment, has rightly been reduced / disallowed by the lower authorities and the same has rightly been allowed @ 15%. So far as the ‘Chassis’ is concerned, since the same is part and parcel of the vehicle, the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 40%. So far as the Chassis is concerned, since the same is part and parcel of the vehicle, the assessee is entitled to depreciation @ 40%.
M/S RMC SERVICES VERSUS THE ITO, WARD 3 (4) , CHANDIGARH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22395 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82919&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the assessee bank does not have any segregation value of land and building of the said premises and it has paid composite price, the entire depreciation claim is allowable under Section 32 of the Act. So, following the aforesaid decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in CIT vs. Rajesh Exports Ltd. and when it is categoric case of the assessee that the purchase price of land and building is composite one and it has no segregation of value of land and building separately, disallowance made by the AO/ CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
M/S NATIONAL HOUSING BANK VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22394 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82921&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under section 11(1) of the Act, every charitable or religious trust is entitled to deduction of certain income from its total income of the previous year. The income so exempt is the income which is applied by the charitable or religious trust to its charitable or religious purposes in India. This is, of course, subject to accumulation up to a specified maximum which, in the present case, was 25%.
M/S. SNEHA TRUST FOR CHARITY AND EDUCATION VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1 PALAKKAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22393 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82923&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The nature of receipts as shown in the income and expenditure account and has also been noted by the Ld. AO is flowing from the activities carried out in pursuance of the objects for which it was granted registration u/s 12AA. Assessee trust has basically has received fees from the students for value education workshop and giving coaching for the sports. Such an activity ostensibly falls within the ambit of category of education and giving coaching in sports is also one of the related activities for the overall development of the youth and the sports activities.
ITO (E) WARD-2 (4) , NEW DELHI VERSUS NATIONAL FOUNDATION TRUST
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22392 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82924&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Inspector had conducted detailed enquiry and have also contacted various students who are exempted from paying the fees by the assessee trust. Neither the copy of the report was provided to the assessee nor the comments of the assessee were called for on the report of the Inspector. CIT(Exemption) without confronting the report of the Inspector have wrongly held that the assessee was into commercial activities.
SANT UPASNI MAHARAJ BAHUUDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22391 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82931&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A.O. has incorporated the provisions of section 80JJAA of the Act relating to assessment year 2014-15 and has applied the same to both the years under consideration. It is pertinent to note that sub-section (3) of section 80JJAA as amended by Finance Act 2016 makes it clear that the provisions that existed before 1st day of April, 2016 shall apply to the earlier years, meaning thereby, the provisions, which are applicable to a particular year, should be applied for determining the eligibility of the assessee to claim this deduction.
CENTURY LINK TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) (1) BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22390 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The benefit of change in Law as above by Finance Act, 2014 should be available and for the year under consideration, the benefit of exemption should be available on the date of registration as the assessment of the year was pending because as per chronology of events the assessee had already applied for registration u/s.12A on 03.03.2016 and the assessment order was passed on 15.03.2016.
NAVSARI MALESAR BEHDIN ANJUMAN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22389 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82905&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Vide order dated 06- 02-2020, the Tribunal has directed to adopt ₹ 1,032/- as per sq. mtr as fair market value on the date of sale in that case, namely, 08-01-2004 against survey number 187. It, therefore, emerges that the stamp value of ₹ 955/- in this case is still less than the fair market value determined by the Tribunal for similar property in the case of Shri Nitin N. Shewale. Agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) in restricting the addition by adopting fair market value as on the date of transfer of land at ₹ 955/- p.s.m., being the stamp value.
SHRI HEMANT SUDAM TUPE VERSUS ITO, WARD-1 (3) , PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22388 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82906&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Authorities below should not have asked the purchaser to prove source of the source. The purchaser also in his statement explained the reasons for giving the advance in cash to the assessee because he was not maintaining bank account for the last ten years. The assessee has only the source of income from capital gain and income from other sources being interest. Therefore, the assessee was not doing any business activity during the year under consideration.
SHAILENDRA KUMAR TAMOTIA VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2) , BHUBANESWAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22387 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82908&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has recorded clear satisfaction as required under the law during the course of assessment proceedings, before initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in legal arguments taken by the assessee and accordingly, ground of assesee appeal is rejected.
MUNIR KHAN VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7 (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22386 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82909&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Maintenance charges claimed by the assessee can only be treated as separate source of income and it can be charged as a separate head under income from other sources as claimed by the assessee and if there is any expenditure in connection with the above income, can only be allowed to be claimed by the assessee against the maintenance receipts.
YJ REALITY AND AVIATION PVT LTD. VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22385 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82911&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had made particular application for granting of approval on 14.08.2008. However, the approval was only granted by the Pr. CIT on 06.03.2017. CIT has taken almost 9 years to grant approval, in our view by any stretch of reasoning, the time taken for granting the approval cannot be justified by the Revenue. Lapse/delay on the part of the Pr.CIT for not deciding the approval application of the assessee within a stipulated period of time, cannot be the ground for not allowing the claim of deduction u/s.36(1)(v) to the assessee.
M/S. MAASS FLANGE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14, PUNE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22384 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82912&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Not in dispute that the assessee is engaged in the activity of education which qualifies as charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15). There is no reference in the impugned order dated 27.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(E), whatsoever, to any facts and circumstances which can be said to be violative of provision of Section 12A read with Section 12AA. No materials have been brought to our attention from the Revenue’s side either to show how any of the provision under Section 12A read with 12AA are not fulfilled by the assessee.
M/S NAV BHARAT SHIKSHA SAMITI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME–TAX (E) , CHANDIGARH.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22383 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82893&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, admittedly, the assessee inherited the property on the death of her parents. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of indexation cost from the date of acquisition of asset or from 01-04- 1981. The ld CIT(A) while passing the order followed the ratio of decision of Manjula J Shah. No infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). In the result the first issue is decided in favour of assessee.
ITO (IT) -4 (2) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS ANURADHA SHIVPRAKASH SETH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82894&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The facts of the present case is quite similar to the facts of the case New Shailaja Co-operative Housing Society Ltd wherein also the assessee acquired the land in the year 1972 and constructed the building and subsequently by virtue of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, 1991 (DCR).
SBI STAFF CHITRALEKHA CHS LTD. VERSUS CIT-40, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22381 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82896&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As assessee’s own funds far exceeded the investments held by the assessee which is evident from the fact that the assessee has year-end share capital and free reserves aggregating to ₹ 17.25 Crores as against investments of ₹ 9.16 Crores held by the assessee. Incremental reserves during the year far exceeds the incremental investments made by the assessee during the year.
M/S. RAMGOPAL TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS DCIT-3 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22380 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82898&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Referring to lease deeds available in the paper book, we find that the assessee has simply let out the properties owned by it for exploitation of his property by an owner and it is not doing any such activity based on which, it can be said that the letting out of the properties was the doing of a business.
M/S MLC PROPERTIES LLP VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 1 (2) (1) , BENGALURU
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22379 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82900&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the assessee alleged that his income is not taxable during the provisions of the Act there cannot be any obligation upon the assessee to pay advance tax.
PARMANAND SHARMA VERSUS ITO WARD- 2 (4) NOIDA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22378 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82901&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.