-
The asset acquired under amalgamation in the year 2008 is covered u/s. 47(vi) (transactions that cannot be regarded as transfer). There was no transfer that took place on 01.04.2008 and hence, the period of holding of the assets should be considered as more than 36 months.
The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s.Feroke Boards Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21201 (ITAT-COCHIN)
-
Assessee woud be entitled to India-Australia Treaty wherein as per Article-15, salary income of resident of Australia is taxable only in Australia.
Shri Paul Xavier Antony samy Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21200 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Just because there is abnormal increase in the cost, does not mean that assessee has not incurred this expenditure for its business. Service fee expended by the assessee is revenue in nature, allowable u/s 37.
Phillip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21199 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37
-
S. 90(3): The law laid down in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) that once an income of an Indian assessee is taxable in the treaty partner source jurisdiction under a treaty provision, the same cannot be included in its total income taxable in India as well i.e. the residence jurisdiction, is no longer good law in view of s. 90(3) inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2004 read with Notification no. 91 of 2008 dated 28.08.2008. The substitution of s. 90 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 does not affect the validity of the said Notification. The mere amendment or substitution of a section does not affect the validity of notifications, circulars and instructions issued therein (all imp judgements referred).
Technimont Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21198 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 90(3)
-
S. 153C: Compliance with the requirements of s. 153C is mandatory. (i) If the AO of the searched person is different from the AO of the other person, the AO of the searched person is required to transmit the satisfaction note & seized documents to the AO of the other person. He is also required to make a note in the file of the searched person that he has done so. However, the same is for administrative convenience and the failure by the AO of the searched person to make a note in the file of the searched person, will not vitiate the proceedings u/s 153C. (ii) If the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient for the AO to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged to the other person. Once the note says so, the requirement of s. 153C is fulfilled. In such case, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the AO, as he himself is the AO of the searched person and also the AO of the other person. However, he must be conscious and satisfied that the documents seized/recovered from the searched person belonged to the other person. In such a situation, the satisfaction note would be qua the other person. The requirement of transmitting the documents so seized from the searched person would not be there as he himself will be the AO of the searched person and the other person and therefore there is no question of transmitting such seized documents to himself
Super Malls Private Limited vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21197 (SC) · Section 153C
-
S. 92A(2): The law in Diageo India Pvt Ltd 47 SOT 252 that the definition of "Associated Enterprises" in section 92A(1)(a) & (b) is the basic rule which is unaffected by the specific instances referred to in s. 92A(2) is not good law in view of the amendment by the FA 2002 and CBDT Circular No. 8 dated 27.08.2008. The correct law as held in Veer Gems 95 taxmann.16 (Guj) is that S. 92A(2) restricts the scope of S. 92A(1) and it is only when the criterion specified in sub section (2) is satisfied, two enterprises can be treated as associated enterprises. Judgements of non jurisdictional High Courts are binding on the Tribunal
Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21196 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92A(2)
-
S. 80-IA(4): As per s. 575 of the Companies Act, the conversion of a partnership firm into a company under Part IX causes a statutory vesting of all assets of the firm into the company without the need for a conveyance. The business of the firm is carried on by the company and the latter is eligible for the benefits of s. 80-IA.
CIT vs. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21195 (SC) · Section 80-IA(4)
-
S. 12AA: Registration can be applied for by a newly registered trust. There is no stipulation that the trust should have already been in existence and should have undertaken any activities before making the application for registration. The term ‘activities’ in s. 12AA includes ‘proposed activities’. The CIT must consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. However, he cannot refuse registration on the ground that no activities are carried out
M/s Ananda Social And Educational Trust vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21194 (SC) · Section 12AA
-
CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee appreciating the assessee‟s explanation relating to some glitches in the software. The said para of CIT(A)‟s order does not have reasons for accepting patent discrepancies appeared in the Profit and Loss Accounts and statement of accounts, dates in the audit reports, etc. No reason is given for the anti-dated Form No.10CCB.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 3, PUNE VERSUS M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21193 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82241&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The information filed by the assessee as required by the AO is incompliance of the said letter/notice. Moreover, the AO has not given the finding about the genuineness of these documents filed by the assessee which means that the AO has not found any defect in the documents filed by the assessee. The assessee has clearly filed all the documents which include share application money, Resolution of share applicant companies whereby the directors were authorized to make investment in the shares of the assessee company, bank statements showing payment through banking channel and return of income filed by those companies.
THE ITO WARD- 1 BEAWAR VERSUS M/S. SHEPHALI HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21192 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82243&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the assessee in support of identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of M/s Bhuwania Bros. Pvt. Ltd. had supplied a copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account to the Assessing Officer. The appellant had also filed the copy of the return of income of M/s. Bhuwania Bros Pvt. Ltd. as well as copy of information letter.
M/S. KUMAR NIRMAN AND NIVESH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21191 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82555&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Comparing the provision of Section 36(1)(vii), pre 1.4.1989 and post 1.4.1989, Supreme Court held that the position in law has become well settled. After 1.4.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt in fact has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. A claim of share broker assessee to deduction by way of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii).
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10 VERSUS HYBRID FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MAFATLAL FINANCE CO LTD)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21190 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82558&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no question of law arising for consideration as the appeal is devoid of merits. Liberty is given to the Department to proceed against the trustees and committee members dealing with administration and the monies of the temple for the mismanagement and misappropriation leading to loss of public monies and the Government revenue, if any.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS M/S. ARULMIGU DEVI KARUMARIAMMAN THIRUKOIL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21189 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82559&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 10(4) had banned allowance of any sum paid on account of 'any cess, rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession '. In the corresponding Section 40(a)(ii) the expression “cess” is quite conspicuous by its absence. In fact, legislative history bears out that this expression was in fact to be found in the Income Tax Bill, 1961 which was introduced in the Parliament.
SESA GOA LIMITED, VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 1, PANAJI GOA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21188 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82562&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the AO of the searched person and the other person is the same, there can be one satisfaction note prepared by the AO.
M/S SUPER MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21187 (SC)
-
As priori, it must follow that the business is carried on by the enterprise owned by a company registered in India and the agreement entered into between the erstwhile partnership firm and the State Government, by legal implication, assumes the character of an agreement between the company registered in India and the State Government.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Chetak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21186 (SC) · Section 80IA
-
When there is no decision by the revenue for the earlier years, then there cannot be consistency for no-decisions.
General Motors Overseas Corporation Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21185 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Pursuant to co-ordinate bench restoring the issue for fresh determination, AO straightaway passed the impugned order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 directing to charge interest and penalty without first passing draft assessment order.
AB Sandvik Coromant Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21184 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Since the terms and the purpose of HDFC Life is also akin to the purpose which is contained in keyman policy, therefore, any expenditure incurred by the company for making payment of insurance premium of key employees are allowable.
SVS Tex O Fab Pvt Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21183 (ITAT-SURAT)
-
As the term forming part of participation had been used in context of a company which is resident of either of the Contracting State, and the term resident is a defined term, hence there was no requirement on the part of the A.O for reference to the domestic law.
Sofina S.A. vs. The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21182 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.