-
Since the Assessing Officer has initiated fresh penalty proceedings subsequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution, we are of the considered view that penalty levied on the basis of previous order, which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and against which the Revenue is in appeal before us, becomes infructous.
Mcdonald’s India Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20841 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
When the FMV of the tenancy right as on 1st April 1981 is available, there is no valid reason to discard it and adopt the cost of acquisition as per reverse indexation method merely because it is more beneficial to the assesse.
Ajay Indrajit Thakore Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20840 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The TDS and corresponding income assessable to tax is so much interlinked that divorcing them and considering on standalone basis would result in a distorted tax/interest liability of the assessee under the Act.
Greatship (India) Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20839 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Fact remains that as on the date there is no change of circumstances nor the orders of the Tribunal are rendered invalid.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20838 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
CBDT had clarified that penalty u/s 272B is linked to the person, i.e. the deductor, and not to the number of defaults regarding the PAN quoted in the form.
Veetee Fine Foods Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20837 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 272B
-
Though we acknowledge that admission is a best piece of evidence, here on the facts of the case, admission alone cannot be the basis for mulcting the addition.
Uday Shankar Mahawar Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20836 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
The assessee is not engaged in raising the FCCB with motive of any trading and discounting and thereby earning profit on the same. The allegation by the Assessing Officer of motive and intent of earning profit by the assessee are unsubstantiated with any evidences.
OK Play India Ltd Vs JCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20835 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Even if the AO issued 4 notices under section 142(1) but the information sought in all these notices was the same, then it would constitute only one default.
Shri Sandeep Verma Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20834 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 142(1), 271(1) (b)
-
Assessee fits into the definition of a co-operative society u/s. 2(19), despite registered under Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and hence entitled for deduction u/s. 80P.
Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co operative Ltd Vs GOI, ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20833 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 80P
-
The the AO disallowed the above amount without conducting any inquiry of the fact whether there was any loss on account of the fluctuation in the foreign exchange and rate of the US Dollar within the relevant time. The disallowance could not have been without a preceding inquiry into the claim made by the Assessee.
Albasta Wholesale Services Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20832 (SC)
-
We restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to adopt the tax rate as specified in India–USA DTAA in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the DIT(IT) v. Credit Agricole Indosuez.
CITIBANK OVERSEAS INVESTMENT CORPORATION C/O DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP VERSUS DY. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) – 2 (1) (1), MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20831 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81324&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer has already initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That being the case, the argument of the learned Authorised Representative that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of the specific reasoning of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on which a part disallowance under section 10A of the Act was made, in our view, is hyper–technical and superfluous. Therefore, it does not merit consideration.
AURO GOLD JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE–5 (2), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20830 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81325&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
While upholding 10% of addition in respect of the amount distributed, the DRP have clearly observed that the TPO was not justified in making addition to the extent of 50%. DRP held that consumer numbers represent a key parameter for deciding the amount or placement charges and in the facts and circumstances of the case held that allocation made by the assessee with respect to the total placement charges received is fair and proper.
HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM LTD. VERSUS DCIT-12 (2) (2), MUMBAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20829 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81327&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Performance bonus does not form part of salary as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A for the purposes of Section 10(13A) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
SUDIP RUNGTA VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20828 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81330&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an admitted fact that in the present case the agreement in question was found during the course of search in the case of Shri Naresh Sabharwal and proceedings u/s 153A have been initiated against him. Therefore, the agreement in question have been transferred by A.O. of the person searched to the A.O. of the assessee for the purpose of taking remedial action in the matter.
SHRI ADARSH AGRAWAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-61 (1), NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20827 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81334&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The appellant had furnished only the Annual Report depicting the audited financial statement along with copy of the receipts and distribution statements. It is also evident that the appellant had furnished a Certificate issued by the Joint Director (Audit) of the Co-operative Department. He has not furnished the report of audit in the prescribed form, Form 3CA, as required under the second proviso (as it stood then) to Section 44AB read with the requirements under Rule 6G(1) of the Income Tax Rules.
PEROORKKADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) –I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20826 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81835&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because at the time of condoning the delay no such condition was imposed that the claimants shall not be entitled to the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay, the appellant who is otherwise a public body cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the interest for the period of delay, which is not at all attributed to them.
The Executive Engineer Vs The State of Maharashtra & Others Etc.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20825 (SC)
-
Though, according to the builder the transaction of the sale is concluded as and when risk and reward passes to the buyer, but in case of the assessee, who is a service provider, commission accrues only at the time of complete services are rendered including receipt of payment by the builder.
Goldmine Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20824 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There was no new material with the AO to initiate the proceeding u/s 148. When the proceeding u/s 153C has been initiated and subsequently dropped, thereafter on the similar grounds the provisions u/s 147/148 is not liable to be invoked. Assessee took the alternate plea that the notice u/s 147/148 was issued after the expiry of 4 years and no sanction was taken, therefore, the order is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law.
SHRI MOHAN THAKUR VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8 (4), MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20823 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81307&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No material brought on record by the lower authorities or before us by the Ld. DR to substantiate that the contribution towards development fund was not voluntary or that it was in exchange for the services provided by the assessee society to the payers. Onetime fee paid by members who are aware that it could be spent by assessee only towards capital purposes was in the nature of corpus donation and not taxable as income.
VIDYA BHARATI SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION & SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1 (1), KOLKATA.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20822 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81308&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.