-
It is not the intention of the Legislature that any person who sets up a hotel within the time limits indicated in the State of Uttarakhand, without any regard to the exact location, and the manner in which it operates, its impact on the nature , all such hotels should be entitled to claim the benefit.
M/S. ANCHAL HOTELS PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20801 (SC) · Section 80IC
-
The assessee had a window of three years period from 21.12.2011 till 21.12.2014 to construct a house property, calculated from the date of transfer of original asset. In this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the Respondents do not fulfill the conditions laid down under Section 54 (1) of the Act so as to deny the benefit of the said provision.
SH. AKSHAY SOBT Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20800 (HC-DELHI) · Section 54
-
The finality clause contained in section 245-I of the IT Act does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is not possible to state that this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.
INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20799 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Assessee has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record.
PEB Steel Lloyd (India) Limited Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20798 (HC-MP)
-
Since the department had been unable to give any reason for not sending the complete application of government employee and since furnishing of the APAR for the year 2016 - 2017 was only in the control of the department, government employees should not be made to suffer and should be allowed to make a representation to the Committee to enable it to examine its grievance, as otherwise, a competent departmental candidate would lose-out in the recruitment process.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs ASHOK KUMAR SAROHA AND ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20797 (HC-DELHI)
-
The above facts clearly points to one and only irresistible conclusion that these gains earned by assessee were bogus and sham transactions to convert her unaccounted money into legitimate money through circuitous route of sale and purchase of listed shares of M/s Turbotech Engineering Limited which is a penny stock and the assessee is trying to take advantage of exemption provision as enshrined u/s 10(38).
Smt. Sudha Eashwar Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20796 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 10(38)
-
FTS in terms of ARticle 12 of India-Portuguese DTAA covers payments for services ancillary to the enjoyment of right, property or information as per para 3. The payment in the present case does not satisfy the requirement of use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software, and further, that the parent company did not make available any technical knowledge, experience or skill etc. to the assesse.
CMA CGM Agencies India Private limited Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20795 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
AO cannot make any addition or disallowance in the final assessment order which was not proposed in the draft assessment order unless such directions are given by DRP.
SI Group India Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20794 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The services rendered by the assessee entailed provision of support services in advising the entities globally on policies and standards based on international best practices support in terms of IT, financial functions, and other business support services. The services in question are independent services on standalone basis, and, as such, article 12(4)(a) does not come into play.
Kelly Services Inc Vs Deputy Commissioner of International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20793 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The valuation of shares or for that matter any valuation in itself is a projection of future events or activities and no doubt it has to be done with some accuracy, however no person can project with 100% of accuracy and actual events are highly volatile and highly dependent on so many factors.
Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20792 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
Assessee utilized 100% capabilities of employees without allowing the employees on bench, it had no idle employees on its rolls, it incurred no interest costs and it paid a rent amounting to 0.5% of revenue whereas in other cases it was around 5%.
Annapurna Business Solutions Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20791 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 10A
-
The assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act for the instalments paid prior to one year from the date of sale of asset which is 28.07.20120 and, accordingly, the assessee is entitled for benefit of instalments paid on and after 28.07.2011.
Gulshan Arora Vs The ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20790 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Since the assessee has furnished the required details and constructed the small house at the village, where no approvals or permissions are necessary, we do not find any reason to disallow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO.
SRI PREMJI JIVRAJ PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3) VISAKHAPATNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20789 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81231&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee is liable to pay securities transaction tax when he enters into securities transaction. Tax is payable simultaneously after realizing the consideration. However, if that transaction is included in the total income of the assessee where the total income is assessed either under the provisions of the Act or under Section 115JB when tax chargeable on such income is arrived at, he is given the benefit of tax deductions of the amount, which he has paid under section 88E by virtue of Section 87.
VICTORY PORTFOLIO LTD VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-17 (1) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20788 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81233&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Security services are to be provided by the Airport Owners and operators, who will in turn obtain it from any government agency specified by Central Government. Further, the facility charges are undeniably, service provided by the Airport operators to the passengers of the Airline assessee. Therefore, it is apparent that these parties are providing to the assessee services.
INTER GLOBE AVIATION LTD VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-50 (1) , NEW DELHI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20787 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81235&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Just giving the note will not serve the purpose. Admittedly the various details which have been referred by the learned CIT(A) were not before the assessing officer. Moreover after noting that he has himself examined the bills he has given a general assumption that expenditure must have been incurred for such transportation. When learned CIT (A) has himself verified the bills there was no need of giving such doubtful observation.
ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1 (1) (1) VERSUS M/S. AECO INDIA PVT. LTD. C/O. KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY KALPATARU HERITAGE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20786 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81236&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The services rendered by the assessee entailed provision of support services in advising the entities globally on policies and standards based on international best practices support in terms of IT, financial functions, and other business support services. The services in question are independent services on standalone basis, and, as such, article 12(4)(a) does not come into play.
Kelly Services Inc Vs Deputy Commissioner of International Taxation
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20785 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
DIT that the assessee had taken loss adjustment entries worth of ₹ 1,55,31,999/- in F&O and Cash Segment by way of CCM, re-opened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 15.10.2015 filed objection against the said notice u/s.148. The AO rejected the objection by an order dated 05.02.2016.
DY. CIT, 4 (3) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S SETU SECURITIES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20784 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81220&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case there was an existing tax liability on the assessee to pay the taxes and, therefore, the Assessing officer should have adjusted the tax from the seized assets , hence, it cannot be said that the assessee has not complied the aforesaid requirement of provisions of section 271AAAB of the Act. Even otherwise, the assessee has also explained that it was not possessed of sufficient funds and the moment it got possessed of funds, it filed the revised return on 12.2.2014 and paid due taxes.
PALACE INFRATECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-III LUDHIANA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20783 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81221&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee was allowed the use of the software for its own business purpose and there was no permission to sub-licence the same. There is a specific bar on the assessee in not sub-licensing the software, which were to be used for its sole business needs. The consideration was for the use of software for its own business purpose and not for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of software.
CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20782 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81226&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.