-
As could be seen from the facts discussed above, the Assessing Officer had imposed penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act for different quarters of the financial year 2009–10 due to delay in filing of TDS statements. However, while deciding assessee’s appeals for the first three quarters of the financial year 2009–10, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Co–ordinate Bench, we delete the penalty imposed.
SHRI RAVIRAJ RELAMPADDU VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE, THANE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22297 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82508&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The only basis of making impugned addition was loose paper found at the premises of the third party. However, no corresponding incriminating material was found from assessee’s premises which would corroborate the same. In fact, each and every document impounded from assessee’s premises was explained during the course of assessment proceedings and no infirmity could be found in the same. It was incumbent upon Ld. AO to make further inquiries in the matter to substantiate the veracity of the loose paper and bring on record cogent material / evidences to establish that cash was received by the assessee.
D.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S. ANGEL INFRA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22296 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82466&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For assessment year 2008-09, Ld.AO passed final assessment order immediately within 2 days of receipt of report from Ld. TPO whereas for assessment year 2009-10 final assessment order was passed after a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of transfer pricing report. Present assessee is an eligible assessee, as defined in section 144C (15) (b) of the Act.
M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2 (1) (1) (1) , BENGALURU. AND JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME – TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22295 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82467&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had purchased immovable property and there was a difference of value as disclosed by the assessee and adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. It is also not a case where the assessee objected before the AO regarding valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The assessee first time made objection before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding valuation of the property.
SHRI JAYKISHAN PARCHANI S/O SHRI ARJUN PARCHANI VERSUS ITO-5 (5) INDORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22294 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82469&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order passed by Ld CIT(A) quashing the impugned order as barred by limitation does not call for any interference, as the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD. wherein held period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A).
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) , CIRCLE-2 (1) , BENGALURU. VERSUS M/S INFOSYS LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22293 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82476&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO considers income from Millennium project as Business income then he should allow all the expenses claimed by the Assessee and therefore the income from Millennium project arrived at by the AO at ₹ 1,17,35,191 was not proper. By reason of this conclusion, there would be only loss from the project Millennium and therefore there is no occasion to allow deduction u/s.80IAB(4)(iii).
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11 (3) , BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22292 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82475&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Ld.CIT(A) examined the details and confirmed the amount to the extent of ₹ 68,24,522/- in respect of 162 cases. During the appeal hearing, for a query from the bench, the Ld.AR neither furnished the actual tax liability nor furnished the details. The case was posted for hearing in as many as 20 occasions and the A.R continuously taken the adjournment.
M/S TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-3 (1) VIJAYAWADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22291 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82474&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Coercive Recovery of taxes etc during Corona Virus crisis: The orders of the Allahabad & Kerala High Courts directing the authorities to defer coercive recovery of taxes is stayed in view of the stand of the Government that the Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every one
UOI vs. P. D. Sunny
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22290 (SC)
-
Here in the case in hand, the Assessee is entitled to seek exemption by way of deduction under Section 10B, since it is a 100% EOU, which is an admitted fact. In that capacity, the Assessee claimed exemption / deduction of a sum of ₹ 29,26,65,024/- from out of the profit and gain of the business which amounts to ₹ 30,82,27,633/-. Also it claimed unabsorbed brought forward depreciation allowances relating to AY 2001-02 to the extent of ₹ 1,55,62,609/-, thereby shown the taxable income as Nil in the Return submitted for the AY 2004- 05.
M/S. COMSTAR AUTOMATIVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD., VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE - I (3), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22289 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82716&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In terms of the Circular No.15 dated 8.5.1969, for the purpose of calculation of tax deductible at source under section 192, self-certification on the part of the employee that the conveyance was owned by him and being used by him for the purposes of employment was adequate. The present case relates to uniform allowance, which as noticed earlier is exempt from tax under section 10(14)(i) of the Act read with rule 2BB(1)(f) of the rules to the extent to which such expenses are actually incurred for that purpose.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) VERSUS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22288 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82715&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is clearly beyond the period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, in view of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act, the respondent has to record the reason as to whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the failure on part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts for its assessment for the year under consideration.
ASIAN TUBES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (1) (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22287 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82714&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We cannot believe this fact of the revenue because no statement of sellers were recorded by the department. If there was some doubt, revenue ought to have recorded statement of the seller along with statement of witnesses. The Department does not have any other evidence other than the so-called banachhitti wherein appellant’s son has made an agreement to purchase land at the rate of ₹ 27 lakhs.
PUKHRAJ LALCHAND BAGRECHA VERSUS THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4) AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22286 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82444&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Omission of second proviso to Section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. If the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2) , CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. BUZZWORKS BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22285 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82440&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Earlier the appeal of the assessee was heard by the Tribunal on 7-02-2019 but it was released on account of other connected appeals of the group concerns which are required to be heard together.
SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22284 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82439&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The sale of properties by the assessee has nexus with the business of the assessee, Thus, confirms the findings of the AO/ITAT. The finding of fact cannot be regarded as perverse, so as to give rise to any substantial question of law or so as to warrant interference.
Afonso Real Estate Developers Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22283 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Supreme court is granting the stay in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of the prevailing situation and would itself evolve a proper mechanism to assuage concerns and hardships of every one.
UNION OF INDIA Vs P.D. SUNNY & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22282 (SC)
-
In the present case, the assessee had received Rs.57 lakhs due to waiver of loan, hence the requirement u/s 28(iv) was not satisfied and therefore could not be held as taxable.
Essar Shipping Limited Vs Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22281 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 28(iv)
-
Most taxes are paid online without human to human contact and hence there is no legal rationale for the Kerala HC to pass such broad omnibus directions.
Order of Amit Rawal Vs High Court
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22280 (HC-KERALA)
-
In the present case, not even whisper, that claim of 100% depreciation by the assessee, 25% of which was disallowed was with intend to evade tax. It was due to bonafide mistake and oversight that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation instead of 75%. In claiming 100% depreciation there was no intention to evade tax and the said claim was only a bonafide mistake.
RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22279 (SC) · Section 143(1-A)
-
Since the deletion of expression cess from the Income Tax Bill, 1961, was deliberate, there is no question of reintroducing this expression in Section 40(a)(ii) of IT Act and that too, under the guise of interpretation of taxing statute.
Sesa Goa Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22278 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 40(a)(ii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.