-
The proprietary concern was succeeded by the legal heirs and the proprietary business was carried on by the legal heirs of the deceased by converting the same into partnership firm there is an inheritance of business and therefore, as per the provisions of the section 78(2) assessee is entitled to set-off business loss/unabsorbed depreciation of the proprietary concern against income of the successor partnership firm.
INCOME TAX OFFICER – 17 (2) (4), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. NARSHI NENSHI & SONS AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20821 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81309&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Court expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1) , PUNE. VERSUS M/S. AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20820 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81310&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The accounts are somewhat convoluted as regards royalty. While it is possible that it may be difficult for the assessee to immediately discover the persons entitled to receive the royalty on account of the licence fees earned by the assessee or the quantum of royalty payable to such persons, it is evident that the provision made to carry forward a certain amount during a financial year almost invariably substantially exceeds the pay-out during the following year.
SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASST/ DY. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIRCLE 3, KOL & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20819 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81828&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions of Section 147 confers the power upon the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment and the said power has to be exercised only if there are reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, meaning thereby, existence of the reasons and formation of the believe on the basis of such reasons, is an essential condition for invoking provisions of Section 147.
CHAWLA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT & ONE ANOTHER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20818 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81829&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner is justified in asking for interest on delayed refund of tax that was paid by his employer which has been held to be not payable by the employer. Once there is a refund and if there is a delay, interest is payable by the employer. There is no basis for denying interest on such delayed refund of the amounts.
P.R.Ganapathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20817 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 244A
-
Since the proprietary concern was succeeded by the legal heirs and the proprietary business was carried on by the legal heirs of the deceased by converting the same into partnership firm there is an inheritance of business and therefore, as per the provisions of the section 78(2) of the Act assessee is entitled to setoff business loss/unabsorbed depreciation of the proprietary concern against income of the successor partnership firm.
Narshi Nenshi & Sons Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20816 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no requirement in law to approach to the CPC for rectification of the order, if the assessee is aggrieved by the order and denies his liability as per the intimation received by him under section 143 (1) of the Act.
Dixit Rice Mill Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20815 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 143(1)
-
The services provided to the assessee are not any specialized services but only standard facilities, which are available to all the airlines and hence, do not fall within the provisions of technical services as provided u/s 194J.
Inter Globe Aviation Ltd Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20814 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It can be said that where a superior title is created before any income accrues or arises, it would be the diversion of income by overriding title but where there is no obligation attached and income is applied as per assessee's own choice after it accrues, it will not be a case of diversion by superior title as no superior title existed.
Emaar MGF Construction Pvt Ltd
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20813 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There can hardly be any dispute that this statutory provision prescribes amortisation of capital expenditure relating to specified items only u/s 35D which have been incurred before the commencement of business or after the commencement of his business, in connection with the extension of its undertaking or in connection with his setting up a new industrial unit provided in sub-section 2(i) and (ii) of section 35D respectively.
DCIT, CC-2 (2), KOLKATA VERSUS M/S MBL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20812 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81281&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The object of the Shunglu Committee was to determine, if the purchase of 333 additional flats by DDA was according to the norms / rules and had not caused any loss to the exchequer. Its object was not to determine the cost or expenditure to the assessee, indeed, the assessee was never called to the proceedings of the Shunglu Committee, nor was any input / clarification taken from the assessee.
EMMAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20811 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee has explained before the authorities below, the circumstances of which payments have been made to the relatives and also expenditure as to what services they have rendered for the assessee company along with their qualification. In earlier year, similar salary have been allowed deduction by the Revenue Department. There is nothing unreasonable in this regard.
DCIT CIRCLE-14 (2) NEW DELHI. VERSUS KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20810 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81283&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addl. CIT and Ld. Pr. CIT while granting approval for reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act merely stated “Yes”, which would show that they have not applied their independent mind and merely accorded sanction without going through any material on record. The issue is thus covered against the Revenue by the aforecited decisions in which even on more facts the approval was not found valid.
M/S. CHARBHUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20809 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The ratio decidendi of the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench is that the 13th proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) confers the power/ jurisdiction to withdraw the approval to the prescribed authority i.e, ld. CIT(E) and therefore, the satisfaction of the ld CIT(E) is a must before issuing the show cause notice for the proposed action of the withdrawal of the approval granted u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act.
M/S SINGHANIA UNIVERSITY PACHERI BARI, JHUNJHUNU. VERSUS THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20808 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81285&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Issue in the present appeal is identical to the one already adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has not placed on record any material to show any distinguishing features in assessment year under appeal. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view.
RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20807 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 vs. S. 263: If the AO has incorrectly or erroneously applied law and income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Revenue should resort to s. 263 and revise the assessment and not reopen u/s 147. When matter was referred to the CIT for seeking approval, instead of holding that the matter falls u/s 263 and not u/s 148, has given approval u/s 151 which shows non-application of mind and mechanical grant of approval. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 cannot be sustained and is held as invalid in eyes of law
Krish Homes Private Limited vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20806 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Sections 147, 263
-
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The legislative intent is to apply s. 56(2)(viib) where unaccounted money received in garb of share premium. The AO has not made out a case that stated money is not clean money. Also, the assessee has given approved valuer (CA) report justifying share premium raised based on valid and prescribed method being DCF and said report is in accordance with ICAI norms. AO has not countered the said report by substitute valuation. Also, if the shares are sold in next FY at much higher amount, the premium cannot be said to be excessive (Lalithaa Jewellery 178 ITD 503 (Chennai) followed)
Clearview Healthcare P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20805 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 147/148: If the AO has failed to perform his statutory duty, he cannot review his decision and reopen on a change of opinion. Reopening is not an empty formality. There has to be relevant tangible material for the AO to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income and there must be a live link with such material for the formation of the belief. Merely using the expression “failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts” is not enough. The reasons must specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee
BPTP Limited vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20804 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
-
The definition of work under that Section [i.e. Sec 194C] is inclusive and specifically includes broadcasting and telecasting. The deductees do broadcasting and telecasting work for the assessee and therefore, Section 194C would apply to the facts of this case.
Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20803 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 194J
-
Once a provision has been interpreted by the superior court, then it will not be open to the assessee to project an interpretation on the concerned provision in tune with the circular, but against the law laid down by the Court.
Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20802 (HC-KERALA) · Section 80P
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.