-
Arm’s length price in the case of loans advanced to AE would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/consumed. The action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct d the AO erred in adopting the India bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australia currency as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australia Dollar.
RUSSELL CREDIT LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CRICLE-8/ADDL. CIT RANGE-8, KOLKAKTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20861 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81414&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons to affirm both the lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s share capital in question as unexplained cash credits liable to be added u/s.68 of the Act in entirety. Their lordships have made it clear that when this tribunal fully agrees with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it need not record separate reasons than those in the lower appellate discussion. The assessee fails in its solitary grievance therefore.
OVERTOP NINCOM PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7 (2), KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20860 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81415&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Arm’s length price in the case of loans advanced to AE would be determined on the basis of rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/consumed. The action of the assessee in adopting the bank rate prevailing in Australia is correct d the AO erred in adopting the India bank rate. The loan amount was given in Australia currency as per the promissory note the AE has to return the amount in Australia Dollar.
NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20859 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81416&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sources of income of the assessee are agriculture and also rental income from HUF properties situated at Nalgonda and Suryapet. Though he mentioned about a petrol bunk, since according to the assessee, the petrol bunk business commenced only in 2012, the income from the petrol bunk business cannot be said to be a source of income for the assessee to deposit in the Bank Accounts for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
BEERAVALLI VENKAT SAI RAM REDDY VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20858 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81872&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee has failed to produce any material to authenticate his contentions that the cash deposits in his account were on account of the sales being made by him from the Kirana business. In absence of any purchase bill to justify that the deposits in the bank account were sale receipts, the tax authorities cannot be faulted for making the addition of the unexplained cash entries in the bank account.
SHRI RAVINDER KUMAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20857 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81873&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Satisfaction arrived at by the authority satisfies all the requirements of law as contemplated under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and explained by judicial pronouncements in that regard.
DEEPAK GUPTA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND 2 OTHERS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20856 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81874&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where the assessee was prohibited from applying for a new PAN where a PAN had already been issued to it, the fact that such a new PAN had been applied and thereafter issued, the new PAN and filing of return of income doesn't confer any jurisdiction to the AO over such matter with such new PAN and the AO with earlier PAN continued to exercise jurisdiction over the assessee company.
Shree Silica Product Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20855 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
There remains no confusion to the extent that the income declared in earlier assessment year can be taken into account to explain the transactions of subsequent year provided there is a nexus between the income declared and the transaction of the subsequent assessment year.
Smt. Ushadevi Mansinghka Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20854 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
AO is the final authority to release the amount subject to the conditions referred to therein. The proceedings before the said authority are pending adjudication. Further, Section 132B of the Act relates to procedure for applications and release of assets seized under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act, and the matter is pending before the concerned assessing officer.
SRI VENKATA PAVANI JEWELLERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20853 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81844&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the amount paid by the petitioner’s employer alone has been refunded back without interest vide 1st mentioned impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 5.10.2012. There is however no discussion as to why the interest under Section 244A was not payable to the petitioner.
P.R. GANAPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – II (5)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20852 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81845&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admittedly, in the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under Section 148 of IT Act and the petitioner was granted 30 days time for filing its return. If the petitioner was oversure that it was not a case of intentional escape of taxable income on nondisclosure, the petitioner would have satisfied the Assessing Authority by way of filing its return in compliance with the impugned notice but, in the present case, except filing return, the petitioner had taken all other course such as filing of objection and invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
SRI. NAVAL KISHORE KHAITAN, VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20851 (HC-AP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81847&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Pursuant to interim order passed by this court, the applicant has already filed the return of income for AY 2017-18, however, during the pendency of this petition, the validity of section 139AA of the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttuswamy's case. The challenge to the constitutional validity of section 139AA of the Act must therefore, necessarily fail.
BANDISH SAURABH SOPARKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20850 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81848&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in Rajkot District Co-op. Bank Ltd. The instructions clearly provide for amortisation of premium paid on acquisition of securities when the same are acquired at the rate higher than the face value. Such amortisation would have to be for the remaining period of maturity.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 VERSUS THE KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO-OP BANK LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20849 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81850&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal noted the observations of the Assessing Officer that the discount allowed to the distributors by the Respondent – assessee company is on account of principal to principal relationship and not that of principal to agent. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharati Airtel Ltd. vs. DCIT.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS), PUNE VERSUS M/S. IDEA CELLULAR LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20848 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81855&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Capital Gains from Family Arrangements: A family settlement which is a settlement amongst family members in the context of their 'preexisting right' is not a "transfer". Such a settlement only defines a preexisting joint interest as a separate interest. However, if there is no preexisting right, the family arrangement constitutes a "transfer". Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement so as to hold that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain (all imp verdicts referred)
P. P. Mahatme, POA Lorna Margaret Pinto vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20847 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68/ 69C Bogus purchases: Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed. As the AO did not dispute the consumption of the raw materials and completion of work, only a percentage of net profit on total turnover can be estimated (Mohommad Haji Adam & Paramshakti Distributors followed)
PCIT vs. Pinaki D. Panani
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20846 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 68, 69C
-
S. 54F: The words "in India" cannot be read into section 54F when Parliament in its legislative wisdom has deliberately not used the words. The assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Act though he has acquired house property in a foreign country. The amendment to s. 54F by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 2015 is applicable only prospectively (all imp verdicts considered)
Rajasugumar Subramani vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20845 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54F
-
The title of the properties in the goods was transferred outside India, further payments were received outside India for offshore supplies. Income from offshore supplies is not liable to tax in India both u/s 44BBB as well as under the provisions of Article 7 r.w. para 6 of DTAA between India and Japan for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09.
Mitsui & Co. Ltd Vs DDIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20844 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee fell within the meaning of eligible assessee as per Sec 144C, since the AO, in the assessment order, made additions on account of adjustment proposed by the TPO in the order passed u/s 92CA(3) and hence the AO was required to issue draft assessment order.
Olam Agro India Private Limited Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20843 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 144C
-
The share application money until the shares are not allotted, is capital, borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession. Until and unless, there is an embargo and restriction under section 36(1)(iii), no disallowance can be made in respect of interest paid on the share application money.
Panarc Consulting Group Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20842 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.