-
The machinery provisions provided in Sub- Section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act would be rendered wholly unworkable in case of a Banking company. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Companies Act, 1956 has excluded insurance, banking companies or the companies engaged in the generation or supply of electricity from the purview of Section 211(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and resultantly from the purview of Section 115JB of the Act.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20921 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81942&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is the settled law that the assessee should be vigilant enough to pursue the appeal filed by it. Merely filing the appeal before the authorities is not sufficient enough on the part of the assessee but following it up for its prosecution is equally important. Thus, there remains no ambiguity to the fact that the assessee should certainly be penalize for not availing the opportunities provided by the authorities.
Deschem Technologies Resources Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20920 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
The substance of the restrictive covenants of the agreement is to restrict the assessee to associate in any manner whatsoever with anybody or person engaged or proposed to engage in the similar business. Therefore, this agreement in its plain reading cannot constitute to be related to termination of employment or to compensate the loss of salary due to termination of employment.
Shri Sunderraj Srinivasan Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20919 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since, the assessee has filed original return within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1), then any revised return filed, subsequently within the due date prescribed u/s 139(5) partaks, the nature of original return filed u/s 139(1) and consequently, the conditions prescribed u/s 139(3) of the Act, is fulfilled and accordingly, loss claimed shall be allowed to be carried forward under the relevant provision of the Act.
Marks & Spencer Reliance India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20918 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80
-
In order to avail benefit of deduction, twin conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that industry should be located in Industrial Backward District as prescribed by the Central Government vide Notification in the Official Gazette and the aforesaid Industry has to commence the production during the period beginning from 1st October 1994 and ending on 31st March 1999.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE. VERSUS M/S. ENDEKA CERAMICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHNSON MATHEY CERAMICS INDIA LTD.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20917 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81931&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has accepted genuineness of the loan transaction. The reasons are completely silent as to how, and on what basis, material or evidence, the AO has come to the conclusion that the loan transaction was an amount received without consideration, so as to bring the same within the ambit of Section 56 of the Act. The nature of the transaction depends solely on the intention of the parties.
VANITA SANJEEV ANAND VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20916 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81933&Category=Judgment&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.
SONAL NIMISH PATEL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 (1) (2)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20915 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81934&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The primary or dominant object of the trust satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2 (15) of the Act. Even if some ancillary or incidental objects are not charitable in nature, the institution would still be considered as a charitable organisation. Merely because some facilities were beyond its main object, that by itself would not deprive the institution of the benefits of a charitable organisation.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – EXEMPTION VERSUS ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20914 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81935&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is nothing extraordinarily unusual or abnormal in the fact of retaining money for sometime before gifting it even if to the son, since there are various considerations which are involved in making a gift and it is up to the donor to decide when and to whom to make the gift. In the present case the period of retention of the amount for eight months, we find, is not unusually large so as to doubt the genuineness of the same.
KULDEEP SINGH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20913 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81570&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Extrapolation made by learned CIT(A) that the Trust shall not be entitled for deduction u/s. 24 of the Act in computation of income from house property is totally unsustainable in law. As a matter of fact, the proposition that income has to be computed as per provisions of the Act even in the case of Trust was approved in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) wherein capital expenditure for acquiring asset which was already shown as application of income was held to be eligible for depreciation which was denied by the Revenue.
SHANTARAM BHAT CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) -1, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20912 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81571&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the services rendered by the assessee under agreement comes under first limb of FTS, then the assesee is not correct in moving to the second limb of FTS, as per the above definition to argue that the services do not make available any technical knowledge, skill, process etc.
Aktiebolaget SKF Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20911 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The primary or dominant object of the trust satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2 (15) of the Act. Even if some ancillary or incidental objects are not charitable in nature, the institution would still be considered as a charitable organisation.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20910 (HC-DELHI)
-
The AO had ignored the addendum agreement as the same was not registered. Whereas it is also a factual position that even the agreement dated December 31, 2010 was also an unregistered document, therefore, in such a situation, the Assessing Officer was not expected to adopt the pick and choose method. Even otherwise, the Revenue failed to demonstrate as to how the addendum dated April 12, 2011 was compulsory registerable.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS DR. ITM LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20909 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81538&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no averment or allegation that the assessee-company does not fulfil the condition as required under section 80G(5). So far as the contention of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) that the company has been formed to fulfil the corporate social responsibility of the another company, the issue has been settled by the co-ordinate Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Nanak Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. CIT(E).
SABTERA FOUNDATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20908 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81539&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has entered into 2 separate agreement, both dated 31/12/1996, the copies of which have been placed on record. By virtue of agreement for purchase of software business undertaking, the assessee has acquired the undertaking for a consideration of ₹ 25 Crores. There is another agreement titled as non-compete agreement which restrict FIL to compete with assessee in development and sale of software for exports market for a period of 10 years.
ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS INDIA LTD) VERSUS ACIT (INV.) CIRCLE 2 (1), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20907 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81541&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold in next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non resident buyer and further there is no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act is hereby deleted.
M/S CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD 6 (2), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20906 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81544&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has claimed exempt LTCG by trading in shares of LTL. The details filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings have not been examined and inquired into by the AO. This is evident from the assessment order produced above and also from the documents available on record. One cannot miss the proposition that assessment made without inquiry is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
MOTILAL SALECHA HUF VERSUS PR. CIT-31, ROOM NO. 301, C-13 PRATYAKSHAKAR BAHVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20905 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the letter Dated 05.01.2016 was qualified and subject to documents to be supplied by the A.O, it is clear that admission of the assessee in the said letter was not correct and true because it was not based on any evidence or material if found during search. Thus, the Board Circular Dated 10.03.2003 (supra) would apply to the case of the assessee that the Department should concentrate of collection of evidence of income and should not based on addition merely on the basis of confession obtained from assessee through the letter Dated 05.01.2016.
SHRI TARACHAND KHATRI, RAMNATH BUILDING, OPP. BHAWARTAL, JABALPUR. VERSUS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20904 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81549&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We note that the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Arora had relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Khan which has already been distinguished by this Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer. In view of this law laid down by this Court, substantial questions of law as framed do not arise.
Sanjay L. Sonavane Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20903 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 54F
-
Working in the late hours and passing this kind of cryptic order will not only affect the health of the officer but also prejudice the interest of the assessee. Though it may not be wrong to continue the hearing after office hours occasionally, hearing the appeals and making the tax practitioners, advocates and Chartered Accountants to wait till 9 PM to 10 PM on daily basis has to be avoided, and thus remits issue back to CIT(A) for re-examination.
Shri Shanmugam Senthilkumar Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20902 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.