-
AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath of Mr. Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta during survey conducted at the premises of M/s. Herbicure. We have reproduced Question no. 22 and 23 and answers given by Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, wherein he admits to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. This information we should say can be the tool to start an investigation when the assessee made the claim for weighted deduction.
RAJDA POLYMERS VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22357 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82791&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
While ascertaining whether the companies are persistent loss making or not, the quantum of loss suffered during the period under consideration is immaterial. The Tribunal in various decisions have only considered the period of loss and not the quantum of loss.
DCIT-8 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22356 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · DCIT-8 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.
-
AO had proceeded to make the addition on the basis that the assessee had sold the shares of M/s. TUIHL which was a foreign company. However, during the appellate proceedings the assessee was able to produce documents to substantiate that it (M/s. TUIHL) was indeed is an Indian company which was duly registered with ROC, Kolkata since year 1981 and, therefore, is an Indian Company.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-8 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. MERLIN RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22355 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82795&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reason for which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny relates to the AIR information on the cash deposits in the savings bank account. Assessing Officer did not obtain the written approval of the concerned Commissioner before extending the scope of scrutiny in respect of disallowance under Section 14A.
BOTHRA FINANCIAL SERVICES VERSUS ITO WARD-5 (4) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22354 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82797&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the revised return of income, there is no concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of any kind. Disallowance of claim u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, nowhere attract the penalty in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproduct Vs. CIT (P) Ltd. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, therefore, we set aside the same and delete the penalty.
LATE SHASHIRAJ KAPOOR (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE KUNAL KAPOOR) VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE 16 (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22353 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82763&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Without any specific enquiry on the subject by the assessing officer, the assessee has tried to pass off the information about how the said long term capital loss to be carried forward arose under a misleading heading of note on allowability of provision written back.
STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS PCIT-3, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22352 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82767&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Poviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is applicable only to organization which is for advancement of any other object of general public utility. The proviso cannot be applied to an organization which is engaged in the first three limbs of the definition of charitable activity i.e. Relief to the poor, education and medical relief. Admittedly, assessee before us is perusing activity of education. Therefore proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act cannot be applied to the assessee trust.
M/S. ARVINTH CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) NAMAKKAL.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22351 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, the business of the assessee is manufacturing of plastic packing material. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the assessee is not engaged in the business of warehousing. However, it is the contention of the assessee from the assessment stage itself that in the event the customer does not lift the goods within the permissible time limit, warehousing charges is levied for storage of goods in the warehouse.
RITESH AGARWAL VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–17 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22350 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82769&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No hesitation to hold that the attachment and recovery was effected at a great haste, without taking into consideration of the parameters enshrined in all the decisions cited as above. Further, we take note of the fact that the issue pertaining to liability of the appellant bank for payment of income tax, remains now settled through the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank v. CIT.
ANDOORKONAM SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (1) , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22349 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82811&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The fact that Clause 10 of the Trust Deed states that the fees and charges shall be fixed taking into account the cost of running including future development thereof though without an element of profit motive indicates that the actual intention of the trust is only to generate income by charging fees while admitting children’s to their schools.
M/S. RAJAH SIR ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR FOUNDATION, VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22348 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82812&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The fact remains undisputed is that ITO Ward-3(2) Jaipur who had issued sec. 148 notice dated 23.03.2016 did not have territorial jurisdiction to assess the appellant / taxpayer. The latter assessing authority i.e., ITO Ward- 46(1) Kolkata who framed the assessment had never issued any sec. 148 notice at all. We observe in these peculiar facts and circumstances that the relevant re-assessment framed in assessee’s case is not substantiate for want of a valid sec. 148 notice issued by the Assessing Officer having territorial jurisdiction.
GIRISH CHAND AGARWAL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22347 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82733&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
At the time of hearing before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished the PAN Card of the share applicants, income tax acknowledgment for the A.Y. 2012-13, annual accounts of share applicant for A.Y. 2012-13, bank statements for AY 2012-13 depicting the payments made by the share applicants through banking channel, ROC records of the share applicant for AY2012-13 & Memorandum of Association and Articles.
JCIT (OSD) -9 (3) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP PAJWANI DEVELOPERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22346 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82737&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The perusal of assessment order reveals that the assessee has not filed any details before the AO. Before CIT (A) the claim was made that the cash deposits in bank account pertained to textile business carried out by the assessee, though no books of accounts were maintained nor the bank account were disclosed in return of income.
SMT. KIRAN VALLABHAI AHIR VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3 (3) (3) SURAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22345 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82738&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the record would indicate that basically the assessee has written off its inventory on the ground that such inventory has become obsolete; but when the Assessing officer has enquired to submit the supporting details, what is the nature of inventory, what is the shelf-life, how it became obsolete, then nothing was produced. In other words, the assessee should produce the details of inventory, year of manufacturing/purchase, how it is to be used and how it can be construed that it has no value.
M/S ORG INFORMATICS LTD VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4, BARODA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22344 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82739&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that there was no defect or infirmity in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee and has applied the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arrow Exim Pvt. Ltd to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal merely having applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case, the said ground of appeal does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 VERSUS GOPALA POLYPLAST LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22343 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82786&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee along with the month-wise details of purchase and sale of wheat and wheat atta (flour) showed that the atta that was sold by the assessee was converted from the stock of wheat that was already available with it. Therefore, the purchase of stock of such atta was reflected in the wheat purchase account and not in the atta purchase account. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence to demonstrate the same, which was found to be correct and it was seen that the quantity records and closing stock of wheat and atta confirms the explanation.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS MOHMED SHAKIL MOHMED SHAFI MUTWALI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22342 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82788&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Occupancy certificate issued by BBMP is dated 30.03.2016. Hence in the present year i.e. F. Y. 2014 – 15 relevant to A. Y. 2015 – 16, the Building was not complete and therefore, what is sold cannot be flat but only right in the flat. Hence, it is seen that in the facts of the present case, capital Asset in question is not the flats but right to obtain flats from the builder.
ACIT, CIRCLE – 2 (2) (1) , BANGALORE VERSUS CA BADRINATH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22341 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82680&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is merit in the contentions of the assessee that the condition prescribed to the effect that the shares of venture capital undertaking should not have been listed in a recognized stock exchange shall apply only at the time of making investment. The VCF Regulations do not prohibit cases where the initial investments made in unlisted shares of Venture Capital undertaking becomes listed shares due to corporate actions.
THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (2) (1) , BENGALURU. VERSUS M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIA VALUE FUND IIIA) AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22340 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82681&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had entered into an “agreement of sale” for purchase of an agricultural land located in Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Tq. A perusal of the said agreement would show that as per clause 4.6 of the agreement, the vendor shall effect conversion of scheduled property from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6 (2) (1) , BENGALURU VERSUS SHRI NARAYAN MANDYAM VEERABHUDHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22339 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82682&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the sequence of the events, it is apparent that initially the assessee did not choose to contest the dismissal of deduction u/s 54F of the Act either by way of appeal or by way of Cross objections in spite of the fact that the assessee preferred cross objections on other issues. The order of the CIT(A), therefore, on the issue under consideration had become final.
M/S RAMAN SINGAL VERSUS THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, CHANDIGARH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22338 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82673&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.