-
In the absence of any incriminating document found during the search proceedings at M/s DhanjiMama Group suggesting undisclosed income, it is transpired that the assessee has admitted the impugned income in his hands voluntarily in the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act.
SHRI CHANDRESH ROSHANLAL JAIN VERSUS A.C.I.T., PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21061 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81927&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not in dispute that the assessee had received the sum of ₹ 2 Crores as compensation for wrongful possession of the erstwhile tenant in the property belonging to the assessee, though the same had been characterized by the revenue as arrears of rent taxable u/s.25B r.w.s. 25AA of the Act.
M/S. TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (3) (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21060 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81928&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to DVO in the present case is invalid because as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinemas Vs. CIT rejection of books of accounts is a pre-condition for making a reference to DVO and there was admittedly no such rejection of books of accounts. It is clear from the aforesaid exposition of law on the issue that the reference to DVO in the present case is illegal and any addition made on the basis of such report cannot be sustained.
M/S SHETTY CONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- (1), KALABURAGI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21059 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81933&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no PE of the Assessee in India during the relevant previous year, the question that would now require consideration is with regard to taxability of the FTS. Considering the fats of the case, as per Article 13(2) of the India-UK DTAA, FTS income of non-resident is taxable @ 15% on gross receipts. Whereas as per section 115A of the Act, FTS is taxable @ 20% on gross receipts. The provisions of the India-UK DTAA is more beneficial, the Assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act.
ACIT (IT) , CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S GIFFORD & PARTNERS LTD., C/O MR. SUBRATA MITRA, GARDEN REACH SHIPBUILDERS & ENGINEERS LTD., KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21058 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 38 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 makes it obligatory for the employer before paying him his wages to deduct the employee's contribution along with the employer's own contribution as fixed by Government. The employer is further obliged to pay the same within fifteen days of the close of every month pay i.e. such contribution and administrative charges.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21057 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82190&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner is not an employee of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited as stated by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents. It is also not the case that the petitioner is not joining the investigation or that he has not co-operated during the investigation, rather according to the respondents he has even made some admissions during the course of the investigation and recording of his statements.
LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21056 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82191&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee would like to take benefit of the new Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme introduced two-three days back and therefore he has no objection if this miscellaneous application is allowed.
Ambrish Chandra Sharma HUF Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21055 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The term possession in Sec. 53A of TOPA is a legal concept which denotes control over the land and not actual physical occupation of the land.
M/S SESHASAYEE STEELS P. LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21054 (SC) · Section 2(47)(v)
-
It is an undisputed fact that limitation for passing the assessment order, if it was not draft assessment order was 31.03.2014. However, as noted above, the Assessing Officer has passed the draft assessment order and has forwarded the same to the assessee stating that if the assessee does not agree with the transfer pricing adjustment, then he can file objection before the DRP within 30 days of the said order.
NORTH SHORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-13 (3), NEW DELHI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21053 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81905&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No order of assessment under section 153A could be passed by the A.O. below the Rank of JCIT except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. In the present case, the assessment order have been passed by the DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad. Thus, the A.O. is below the Rank of JCIT, therefore, before passing the order under section 153A under appeal, the A.O. shall have to obtain prior approval of the JCIT.
SHRI AJAY SHARMA, GHAZIABAD VERSUS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, GHAZIABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21052 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81906&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice u/s 143(2) is a statutory notice, upon issuance of which, the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction to frame the scrutiny assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143. Consequently, if such notice is not issued within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 143 viz. before the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished, it is not permissible for the Assessing Officer to proceed further with the assessment.
KUNAL STRUCTURE (INDIA) (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21051 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82174&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, it is not as if amounts were not paid under the JV agreement or amounts due were written off by the petitioner. The petitioner however claimed higher business loss and the depreciation loss during the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 as the amount was not paid by the developer in time as per the JV agreement dated 30.8.1986.
M/S. RAYALA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21050 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82178&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of making protective demand based on the assessment of the person who paid the amount the petitioner appears to be incorrect as assessment cannot be made subject to outcome of collateral proceedings of another person. Assessment has to be completed based on the accounts of the petitioner. It cannot be left open ended as has been done in the case of the petitioner.
CBI INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I (2), TIRUPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21049 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82183&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the procedural requirements are satisfied, whether the inference drawn is based on the relevant materials or not is a matter which may involve a fact adjudication. This is not possible at the hands of this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
HARIOM RICE MILL PRIVATE LIMITED, MR. SUBHASH AGRAWAL, S/O RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 (1), BILASPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21048 (HC-CHHATTISGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82187&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Transfer Pricing: (i) If the "arms length‟ principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India (ii) If the subsidiary has subsequently entered into an "APA‟ with the CBDT & the FAR analysis and overall functions remain unchanged, the "APA‟ would have a bearing on the ALP of the earlier years
Celltick Technologies Ltd vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21047 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Though the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the purchases and sales, yet if the AO has accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not the entire amount (Bholanath Polyfab 355 ITR 290 (Guj) followed, Kaveri Rice Mills 157 Taxman 376 (All) & La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del) referred)
PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21046 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
U/s 43B(a), deduction is allowed on “any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee.” The scheme of s. 43B is to allow deduction when the sum is actually paid. (i) The credit of Excise Duty earned under MODVAT scheme is not sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess. It is merely the incident of Excise Duty that has shifted from the manufacturer to the purchaser and not the liability to the same. Consequently, the unutilised credit under MODVAT scheme does not qualify for deduction u/s 43B. (ii) The sales tax paid by the appellant was debited to a separate account titled ‘Sales Tax recoverable account’ and is liable for disallowance u/s 43B.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21045 (SC) · Section 43B(a)
-
The contention of the assessee's AR seems to hold much water in as much as the provision of section 5 of the Act does not provide any room for bringing to tax any income by way of notional income. On the matter of debit balance of one of the partners, find that the impugned debit balance is not a new finding by the AO, rather it has been carried forward from the past several years and there were no additions made on this count by the AO in those years.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA VERSUS INDIA HOUSING
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21044 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81871&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee did not furnish the source of fund available with her as she is not maintaining regular books of account. The ld CIT(A) also noted that her return of income was only ₹ 251500/- and therefore, after meeting the household expenses, she could not have saved above sum available with her. Thus, the creditworthiness of the above loan was not proved.
RELIANCE MEDICO PVT. LTD VERSUS ITO, WARD-3 (3), SAHARANPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21043 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81874&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of sub-section (6B) of Section 245D of the Act makes it amply clear that any mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act may be rectified at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed or at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case may be.
JAY KUMAR SINGH VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BHOPAL AND OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21042 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82162&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.