-
Deduction u/s.37(1) for gratuity payments made by assessee (a JV company between entities of Bharti Group and Vodafone Idea Limited) during AY 2009-10 is allowed.
Indus Towers Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19420 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37
-
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty: Payment for 'bandwith services' is not assessable as 'royalty' if the assessee only has access to services and not to any equipment. The assessee also did not have any access to any process which helped in providing of such bandwith services. All infrastructure & process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of the service provider and was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services
DCIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19413 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section9(1)(vi)
-
S. 9(1)(vi) 'Royalty': The insertions of Explanations 5 & 6 to s. 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act 2015 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1976, even if declaratory and clarificatory of the law, will not apply to the DTAAs. The DTAAs are a bilateral agreement between two Countries and cannot be overridden by a unilateral legislative amendment by one Country (New Skies Satellite BV 382 ITR 114 (Del) & Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) followed)
CIT vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19412 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
The reasons are the soul and heartbeat of the orders without which the order is lifeless and void.
SRI DEEPAK DHANARAJ Vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19406 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
Launch of prosecution proceedings u/s.276B against petitioner [a real estate co.] for failure to deposit the TDS deducted to the account of Central Government within the prescribed time-limit is upheld.
M/s. Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19405 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 201
-
ITAT order is upheld and deletes income addition of Rs. 85 cr. in the hands of assessee (a US company) despite invoices raised and services rendered to party.
Bechtel International Inc Vs The Commissioner of Income, InternationalTaxation-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19404 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Disallowance of alleged bogus expenses in respect of professional charges debited to P&L account by assessee co. [engaged in IT System Audit and Allied Consultancy Services] for AY 2009-10 is deleted.
AAA Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19403 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As the free services provided by the dealers to the ultimate customers was in discharge of the obligation cast upon the assessee-company towards the customers to provide such services, the payments were liable for TDS u/s. 194C, being in the nature of consideration pursuant to a contract.
Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19402 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194C
-
Weighted deduction claimed by assessee-individual (a science graduate) u/s.35 (1)(ii) for the donation made to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust during AY 2014-15 is disallowed.
Shri Sudhakar Natarajan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19401 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 35(1)(ii)
-
ITAT - Expenditure incurred in the earlier year can be met out of the income of the subsequent year and utilization of such income would amount to income application for charitable or religious trusts u/s. 11.
Shree Bhartimaiya memorial Foundation Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19400 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 11
-
ITAT - In the case of employees of the State or Corporations, fixed conveyance/ other allowances are exempt u/s 10(14) and expenses vouchers submission also not necessary.
Thangirala Immanuel Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19399 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
-
ITAT - HUF is not covered within the definition of relative as prescribed u/s 40A(2)(b), hence commission to own HUF by Karta is not covered by 'related party payments'.
Prataprai G. Rohra Vs The ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19398 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 40A(2)
-
ITAT - Exemption u/s.11/12 cannot be denied on the ground that return was not filed within Sec. 139(1) due-date.
Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19397 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 11
-
ITAT - One-time non-refundable storage fees (on account of storage of stem cells for a period of 21 years) is taxable on 'receipt' basis
Lifecell International Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19396 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Income arising from sale of designs and drawings, cannot be classified as royalty / FTS.
Outotec (Finland) Oy Vs DCIT(International Taxation)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19383 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Exemption provisions should be interpreted strictly and in case ambiguity, benefit of such ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue.
Lok Housing & Construction Ltd Vs DCIT (OSD)-8(1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19377 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
ITAT - Director-shareholder was professionally highly qualified and the bonus was duly offered to tax hence deduction for bonus paid over 100% of Salary to director-shareholder allowed.
Bmr Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19364 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Assessee has purchased the shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a year sold such shares at much higher amount hence no LTCG exemption u/s 10(38).
Harish Kumar HUF Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19363 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 10(38)
-
ITAT - Payment to Singapore sister concern for providing standard bandwith services is not 'royalty' under India-Singapore DTAA.
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19362 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since the consideration under the service agreement cannot be taxed as FIS, therefore the receipt cannot be treated as royalty as there is no transfer of process or formula.
The Nielsen Company (US) LLC Vs DCIT (IT) - 4(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19361 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.