-
The assessee want to avail this Scheme Vivad Se Vishwas, 2020 to avoid litigation and get peace of mind and ready to pay disputed income tax without interest and imposing penalty.
Sh. Gaurav Bajaj Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22277 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It is well settled that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition on the basis of which the said penalty was levied is not in existence, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders.
Smt. Jagdish Kaur Dhillon Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22276 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Once the expenses for holding this event is in connection with business in India, it is only a natural corollary thereto that income from participation, in this event, to a non-resident has a business connection in India.
Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22275 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee, the grounds raised in the CO are independent of the appeal filed by the Revenue and therefore such a cross objection cannot be dismissed simply on the ground of dismissal of the appeal by the revenue involving low tax effect. The residential premises of the Assessee was searched u/s. 132 of the Act on 26.10.2007.
SHRI. G. SOMASHEKAR REDDY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 1 (3), BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22274 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
DR before us at the time of hearing has not brought any iota of evidence suggesting that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not pending either at the time of filing the revisionary application or passing the revisionary order under section 264 of the Act. Thus as a matter of fact the appeal of the assessee was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) during the relevant time when the matter was decided by the Ld. CIT under section 264 of the Act.
DIGJAM LIMITED (FORMERLY BIRLA VXL LIMITED) VERSUS THE ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE – 2, JAMNAGAR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22273 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82429&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the transactions are between mutually / closely associated with the persons i.e. company, directors and shareholders of the company. The amount was repaid otherwise than by crossed cheque. The transactions are genuine which were duly reflected in the books of accounts. The interest paid was also allowed by the AO in the assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act.
M/S SUDHA AGRO OIL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KAKINADA RANGE KAKINADA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22272 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82430&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was not the case of the respondent-assessee that it was a mistake apparent from the record which was required to be rectified. As discussed above, all mistakes cannot be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act. Only a mistake which is apparent from the record can be rectified under the said provision.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 MUMBAI VERSUS RONAK PARIKH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22271 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82698&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From a careful analysis, it is evident that there is a fundamental difference between loan and subsidy and the two concepts cannot be equated. While loan is a borrowing of money required to the repaid back with interest, subsidy is not required to be repaid back being a grant. Such grant is given as part of a public policy by the state in furtherance of public interest.
M/S. ESSAR SHIPPING LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CITY III, MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22270 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82700&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Orders of this nature do not comply with the requirements that have been set out for disposal of stay applications. We had occasion to deal with a similar issue in the case of Mrs.Kannammal V. Income Tax Officer. The present matter as well, the impugned order does not deal with the aspects of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.
GANAPATHY HARIDAASS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22269 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82703&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The main intention in the whole transaction was to acquire a stake in the demerged entity. It is neither a regular transaction of purchase of securities nor it is with the intention to earn profit thereon.
Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22268 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The amount of tax paid in a foreign country which is not eligible for benefit u/s.91, shall be eligible for deduction u/s. 37(1).
Virmati Software & Telecommunication Limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22267 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 91
-
The onus lies on the assessee to justify based on documentary evidence that the interest expenses was incurred on the money borrowed from the bank and other parties for the purpose of the business. But the assessee, in the present case has failed to do so. Assessee claimed to have received interest-free loan from M/s Master developers in the submission made before the learned CIT (A). However, the assessee to establish the genuineness of loan from M/s Master Developers has contended before the learned CIT (A) that it has paid interest on the money borrowed from MD.
SHRI JIVRAJ V. DESAI PROP. M/S MAHADEV ENTERPRISE VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1) , AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22266 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82409&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision of section 269T of the Act, which is in seriatim to section 269SS of the Act, was introduced to eliminate the proliferation of black money in the society at large and not otherwise. As per CBDT circular, noted above, the assessee should explain the reasonable cause.
AUTO FUEL CENTRE VERSUS JCIT, CIRCLE-1, DGP
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22265 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82411&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reaching the conclusion to confirm the order of the Assessing Officer, has also done its part by doing some research on Google Study. Admittedly, the research done by ITAT in the form of Google study was not put either to the appellant/assessee Company or to the said Revenue. As already pointed out by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, in the absence of any specific rule including the applicability of the natural justice, it is a well settled position of law that adherence to the principles of natural justice, is implied in any legislation.
M/S. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2 MADURAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22264 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82681&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no provision therein to eliminate the dividend income from specified foreign company before setting off of business loss unlike Sections 115BBE & 115BBDA wherein a specific restriction is imposed on setting off of any loss.
Tata Motors Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22263 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 115BBD
-
Proviso is aimed at mitigating the hardship or the mischief which was caused to the taxpayer on the invocation of deeming provisions of Sec.43CA where there is marginal variation upto 5% and hence the proviso would take retrospective effect.
M/ s. Faber Construction Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22262 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43CA
-
Assessee has purchased Nicorandil chemical from its associate enterprises @ 20,000 per Kg, whereas the same chemical are sold in the domestic market for lesser value. We observed from the submission made by Ld. AR that the assessee has purchased chemical from the associate enterprises in order to export the same and assessee has instructed the associate enterprises to supply the quality as per the specification of the buyers and accordingly associate enterprises has supplied the chemical following the above said specification.
M/S NIVEDITA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT 10 (3) (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22261 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82387&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As complete details/ particulars were available before the AO in regard to this transaction of sale of sales and conversion of its investment into stock-in-trade. In view of the explanation of the assessee that there has been an inadvertent mistake/ error in filing the return of income and that also occurred entirely on accountant oversite of the chartered accountant while computing income which was required to be computed after considering the provisions of section 45A(2) of the Act.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12 (1) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S ASP INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22260 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82388&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the language used in provisions of section 71(2A) and the explanatory memorandum to Finance Act, 2004, it is very clear that any losses under the head income from business or profession cannot be allowed to set off against income assessable under the head salaries. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. AO, as well as the Ld.CIT(A) were right in disallowed set off of unabsorbed depreciation allowances against income under the head salaries.
HARBANS SINGH BAWA VERSUS ACIT-17 (1), MUMBAI, DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE ACIT-17 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22259 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82392&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee was required to obtain PAN and give her address which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the AO was absolutely justified in sending notice under section 148 of the Act on the last addresses available as per registered sale deed. Since, the assessee was not residing on the given addresses, therefore, question of refusal to accept the notice does not arise. Therefore, the ld.CIT (A) has rightly observed that the contention of the appellant that the service of notice is not as per section 282 is not tenable in law and was not accepted.
SMT. TIRATH KAUR VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- DASUYA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22258 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82395&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.