-
If the purchase of a new house was made out of sale consideration on transfer of capital asset, then the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F.
Smt.Pinky Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20981 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
Assessee could not substantiate before us as to how the AO made enquiries on this issue before concluding the assessment, except by pointing out that all facts were laid before the AO and it can be presumed that he had taken note of this aspect while concluding the assessment. The fact that the AO himself initiated proceedings u/s.154 of the Act to rectify error apparent on record on the aspect of having allowed service tax input written off as a deduction goes to show that he had while completing the Assessment not enquired or was not conscious of the merits of the claim for deduction of the aforesaid sum while computing income.
M/S. METRIC STREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (2), BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20980 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81742&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has not recorded any specific adverse findings on perusal of the reconciliation statement except in respect of two vehicles, where she has relied on the findings of the AO in the remand report, and held that vehicles are not found registered and prima facie, the entries are fictitious in nature. Basis non-verification of two entries out of total 264 entries examined by the Assessing officer which represent less than 1% of the sample size, it would be factually incorrect to hold that the assessee has failed to substantiate whole of his claim of commission expenditure.
SHRI MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20979 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81747&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the payment of interest made by AT&S India to AT&S Austria on the one hand and the receipt of interest by AT&S Austria from AT&S India on the other hand have taken place under the same agreement i.e. Loan Agreement and Distribution Agreement. In this scenario, if the arm’s length interest rate is determined by the DRP at LIBOR plus 450 basis points in the hands of AT&S Austria, then the international transactions under consideration would never be at arm’s length in the hands of AT&S India.
AT & S AUSTRIA TECHNOLOGIE & SYSTEMTECHNIK AKTIONGESELLSCHAFT VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-11 (1), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20978 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81752&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of the ratio held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Limited admit the additional legal ground for adjudication. For levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act the Ld. A.O needs to primarily issue notice u/s 274 of the Act so for initiating proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act the Ld. A.O has to first pass through the hurdle of Section 274.
SHRI ASHOK BHATIA VERSUS DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20977 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81756&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Before recovery in respect of the dues from a private company can be initiated against the directors, to make them jointly and severally liable for such dues, it is necessary for the Revenue to establish that such recovery cannot be made against the company and then alone it can reach to the directors who were responsible for the conduct of the business during the previous year in relation to which liability exists.
ASHITA NILESH PATEL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20976 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82032&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. has answered the two questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the said decision, this Court vide affirming the similar findings returned by the Tribunal held that amount retained by a bank / credit card agency out of the sale consideration of tickets booked through credit cards is not covered under the definition of 'commission' or 'brokerage' given in explanation (i) to Section 194H of the Act and in such circumstances, assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 194H in respect of this amount.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -1 VERSUS M/S. AIR INDIA CHARTERS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20975 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82037&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As rightly pointed out by the Ld. DR, amendment to Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01/04/2004 has inserted proviso to section 36(1)(iii) which clearly states that interest on borrowed funds in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset shall not be allowed as deduction till the date on which the said asset was put to use for the purpose of business. In the instant case, amounts borrowed have been diverted for purchase of an asset which belongs to the assessee’s firm.
MAVOOR TRADE LINKS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), KOZHIKODE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20974 (ITAT-COCHIN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81733&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not even in dispute that all the exclusive and main source of income of the Assessee was only the rentals and lease money received from the lessees in both the cases and the Assessing Authority took a different and contrary view mainly to deny the claim of depreciation out of such business income in the form of rentals, without assigning any proper and cogent reason.
M/S. PSTS HEAVY LIFT AND SHIFT LTD., M/S. CEEDEEYES IT PARKS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE - V (2) CHENNAI.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20973 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82029&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254(2): The limitation of six months for filing a rectification application was substituted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016. Therefore, for assessment years prior thereto, the limitation period may be construed to be four years from the date of the order. Even otherwise, if the view is taken that the limitation period is six months, it is sufficient if the application is filed before that date. It is not necessary that the order has to be passed before that date. The assessee or AO can only bring the mistake to the notice of the Tribunal but have no control over the Tribunal. Neither party can be made to suffer for the inability of the Tribunal to pass an order within the limitation period (All judgements referred)
PCIT vs. ITAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20972 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(2)
-
S. 68 Cash Credits: The assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. The fact that the source of the source is suspect and that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee does not mean that an addition can be made in the hands of the assessee (Veedhata Tower 403 ITR 415 (Bom) followed)
Gaurav Triyugi Singh vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20971 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
S. 254(1): This manner of disposing appeals by the Tribunal is not expected of it and cannot stand to the scrutiny of law and justice. The Tribunal cannot refer to decisions on its own without giving the litigant an opportunity to distinguish it. This results in a breach of the principles of natural justice. It also cannot omit to deal with the decisions relied upon by the litigant. Not dealing with the cited decisions leads to the order being bad as an order without reasons
Bhavya Construction Co vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20970 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 254(1)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The identity of the investors were not in doubt. The assessee had furnished PAN, copies of the income tax returns of the investors as well as copy of the bank accounts in which the share application money was deposited in order to prove genuineness of the transactions. In so far credit worthiness of the creditors were concerned, the bank accounts of the investors showed that they had funds to make payments for share application money. The assessee was not required to prove source of the source. Nonetheless, the inquiries through the investigation wing of the department at Kolkata proved source of the source (PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 412 ITR 161 (SC) distinguished)
PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20969 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68
-
The assessee neither appeared before us, nor filed any details to prove that findings of fact recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) is incorrect. We further noted that the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) is based on the recommendation of the Task force constituted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India and also, the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT, in the case of Renisha Impex Pvt.Ltd.
DECENT DIA JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 (4), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20968 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81709&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has submitted to the AO that ₹ 8,77,100/- is the sale proceeds of the stock balance he was having as on 31.03.2009 and balance ₹ 1,22,900/- was deposited out of the cash balance available with him. In this regard, the assessee has also filed the balance sheet with the AO which he has filed along with the return of income for preceding assessment year. As per the balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 the assessee was having closing stock of ₹ 9,07,250/- and cash in hand of ₹ 2,30,127/-.
TARA CHAND VERSUS ITO, WARD 62 (4), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20967 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81712&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Prescribed authority viz., the DSIR is the authority in quantifying the expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility by the company during the previous year and eligible for weighted deduction under sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act in “Part B” of Form No. 3CL. There is no vested right of the tax payer in the procedures.
M/S. WABCO INDIA LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (2) , CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20966 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81713&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, there is no doubts with regard to the fact that the assessee has followed a consistent method of accounting for accounting project management expenses in the past, but due to changed circumstances, it has changed its method of accounting from a particular date and such changes was bonafide and need of the hour.
HIGHSTREET DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ITO-3 (1) (4) AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20965 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81723&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Lower authorities erred in questioning the need and benefit arrived by the assessee from payment in respect of availing of services from its AE. All that is required to be seen is as to whether there was actual rendition of services or not. We have carefully gone through the emails and invoices placed in the paper book vis a vis TSA Agreement. In our considered opinion, these documentary evidences clearly show the rendition of services by the AE to the appellant company.
GBT INDIA PVT. LTD VERSUS THE A.C.I.T CIRCLE 10 (1) NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20964 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81726&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As recorded in the books, no question of law arises in the present case, much less substantial question of law, giving rise to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 260A, by the Assessee. The admission on the part of the Assessee was the best evidence to be used by the Assessing Authority in the present case.
MR. SUJITH CHERIAN, PROP. KERALA FASHION JEWELLERY CHENNAI 4. VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE II
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20963 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82001&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When transaction was between two persons on principal to principal basis, deduction of tax at source as per Section 194H would not be made since the payment was not for commission or for brokerage. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 194H of the Act was not applicable on discounts given by the assessee to the distributors of prepaid SIM cards.
Vodafone Cellular Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20962 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 194H
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.