-
It is true that assessee has not shown the business receipts and income under the head business income but this reason alone cannot preclude to assessee for claiming incidental expenses incurred for carrying out business. Though, assessee has declared 6.28% net profit rate on the transport business on the gross receipt of Rs 19,88,592/-.
SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ITO VIDISHA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20941 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81622&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is not correct to state that the Tribunal has given a finding in paragraph-7 of its order that the Assessee filed details of TDS statement filing dates before CIT(A). The Tribunal has only stated in paragraph-7 that it was submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A) that it had filed TDS for the relevant FYs as per details given below.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) , BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20940 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81625&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The present case, the A.O. has applied the provisions of section 50C for the computation of additional capital gain on the basis of the value adopted for registration of the said property. Apart from the stamp duty valuation, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has received extra sale consideration over and above the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed.
SRI. SALEH MOHD. SALIM VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2) (1) BANGALORE.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20939 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81629&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that on the aspect of technical issue i.e. non-recording of objective satisfaction by the ld. AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee, we find that in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. Had categorically held that in the absence of said satisfaction as contemplated in Section 14A(2) / 14A(3) of the Act read with rule 8D(1) of the rules, no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could be made by adopting the computation mechanism provided in rule 8D(2) of the rules.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI AND JT. CIT (OSD) -2 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20938 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81608&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the assessee was holding more than 10% of the shares in both the companies, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act would come into play. However, the section further provides that the dividend does not include any advances or loan made to a share holder by the Company in the ordinary course of business where lending of money is a substantial part of the business of the Company.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 VERSUS MOHAN BHAGWATPRASAD AGRAWAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20937 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81952&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 28(iv) of the IT Act does not apply on the present case since the receipts of ₹ 57,74,064/- are in the nature of cash or money. Section 41(1) of the IT Act does not apply since waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SICOM LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20936 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81959&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In view of discharge of burden by the assessee, burden shifted to the revenue; but revenue could not prove or bring any material to impeach the source of the credit. Though Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel, has pointed out that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee had discharged the onus which was on him to explain the three requirements, as noted above.
MR. GAURAV TRIYUGI SINGH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-24 (3) (1), MUMBAI-51
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20935 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81965&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For levy of fringe benefit tax, relationship of employer and employees is the sine qua non and the fringe benefits has to be provided by the employer to the employees in the course of such relationship. In Tata Consultancy Services Ltd this Court referred to Circular No. 8/2005 of CBDT which indicated that the objective of taxing perquisite of fringe benefit is both on the ground of equity and economic efficiency.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 VERSUS M/S. ARISTO PHARMACEUTICALS P. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20934 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81967&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
All the three questions are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd as held from a reading of the relevant provisions of Section 10A it is more than clear to us that the deductions contemplated therein is qua the eligible undertaking of an assessee standing on its own and without reference to the other eligible or non-eligible units or undertakings of the assessee.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, PUNE VERSUS AESSEAL INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20933 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81971&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 132(1) is a serious invasion on the privacy of the citizens, and has to be resorted to when there are pre-existing and pre-recorded good reasons to believe that the action under section 132(1) is called for.
KHEM CHAND MUKIM Vs PR. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20932 (HC-DELHI)
-
MAT inapplicable to assessee-bank prior to amendment to Sec 115JB(2) by the Finance Act, 2012 effective from AY 2013-14.
ING Vysya Bank Limited Vs The CIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20931 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The assessee cannot get the benefit of immunity from the penalty merely there was no specific charge in the penalty notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act or in the assessment order.
Ajay Salt & Chemicals Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20930 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
-
The income from sale of shares has to be treated as capital gains and not business income on the basis that the investment was in a single company and held for long term and hence, cannot be assessed as business income.
IL And Orix Trust Vs The ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20929 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Petitioner may file appeal u/s. 246-A before the first appellate authority within a period of four weeks from today. It is also open to the petitioner to file an application for stay along with the appeal in which event the same shall be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law.
Deepak Kochhar Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20928 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The amount was received by the assessee only because of handing over the old flat for the purpose of re-development. Therefore, the amount of 53,50,500, received by the assessee is integrally connected with the transfer of his old flat to the developer for re- development. The amount has to be treated as income under the head Capital Gains.
Pradyot B. Borkar Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20927 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no dispute that assessee earned interest on deposit in Bank. Further, there is no dispute that the assessee is under the process of setting up of infrastructure facility of Expressway from Sikar to Bikaner. The assessee reduced the interest from its work-in- progress.
SHRI BIKANER HIGHWAY LTD. VERSUS ITO 14 (3) (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20926 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81583&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has alleged that the assessee has incurred an expense in connection with the conversion of land from agriculture to NA with respect to survey numbers. However, the AO without verifying the fact from the parties in whose name the survey number was registered has treated the expenditure as unexplained u/s 69C - AO was under the obligation to carry out the necessary verification before reaching to the conclusion that the assessee has incurred unexplained expenditure.
SHRI RAJESHBHAI JIVRAJ DESAI VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), AHMEDABAD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20925 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81584&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Regarding the use of the machineries in the manufacturing of CT/PT products, we note that the AO has not brought anything on record evidencing that the assessee was not in possession of the requisite machineries. Though the assessee during the assessment proceedings has claimed that it is using APG machines and vacuum casting machines for the manufacture of its alleged products, but the AO has not controverted the submission of the assessee based on any documentary evidence.
D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1 (2) , BARODA. VERSUS M/S KAIZEN SWITCHGEAR PRODUCTS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20924 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81586&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied. Asking the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the expenditure to the extent of 92% of gross receipts, would also defeat the purpose of presumptive taxation as provided under section 44AD of the Act or other such provision. Since the scheme of presumptive taxation has been formed in order to avoid the long drawn process of assessment in cases of small traders or in cases of those businesses where the incomes are almost of static quantum of all the businesses.
SRI. GIRISH V. YALAKKISHETTAR SUJATHA BUILDINGS YALAKKISHETTAR COLONY DHARWAD VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4) HUBLI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20923 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81588&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reasons were, firstly, not recorded before undertaking the search and was, therefore, completely unauthorized and a high-handed action on the part of the Respondents. The Respondents do not state that jewellery was concealed, or was kept by the Petitioner surreptitiously. Merely because the assessee was in possession of the same, it cannot be said that the same represents income or property which has not been disclosed or will not be disclosed.
KHEM CHAND MUKIM VERSUS PR. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INV.) -2, A.I.U. & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20922 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81940&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.