-
There is a bonafide claim made by Assessee but under the wrong section and the said mistake is not a mistake which could only be corrected by filing a revising return.
Armine Hamied Khan Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29987 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 54, 54F
-
The modification is pursuant to the offer made by the Assessee and will not be considered as a precedent in any other proceeding.
Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited Vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)-4(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29986 (HC-DELHI)
-
In the present case, proper verification was not done on the information available with the Revenue at the time of issuance of show cause notice under Section 148A(b) which lead to the erroneous order under Section 148A(d).
Excel Commodity And Derivative Pvt. Ltd Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29985 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 148A(d)
-
Amounts credited in favour of non-resident, were not at the disposal or control of statutory agent and therefore, cannot be charged to tax on the basis of receipt of income, actual or constructive in the taxable countries.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29984 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 40(a)(i)
-
Deferred tax asset cannot be claimed as a deduction as revenue expenditure since it is not an actual expenditure.
Sunny Vista Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Depreciation cannot be denied merely on the reasoning that cars were registered in the name of the Directors of the Company.
Shivam Water Treaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs A.C.I.T.,(OSD)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29964 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT erred in law by holding that the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to Assessee's employees under ESOP scheme and the prevailing market price of the stock on the date of grant of such options was not allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1).
PVR Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29963 (HC-DELHI)
-
The commission so received is not royalty but FTS since the Assessee was involved in rendition of managerial services to SIPL.
Springer Verlag GmbH Vs The D.C.I.T
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29962 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Payment made towards data storage services are not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly TDS liability under Section 195 does not arise.
Reasoning Global EApplication Ltd Vs Dy. C.I.T.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29961 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Powers under Section 251 are wide but cannot go to the extent of displacing powers under Section 147, 148 and 263.
C.N. Babu Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29960 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Once an enquiry is conducted during assessment proceeding, insufficient or inadequate enquiry or improper enquiry could not be a ground to invoke power under Section 263 and this case is not a case of no enquiry.
Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29959 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 263
-
Disabling provision of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) will not be attracted on CSR expenditure incurred on a voluntary basis and for the purpose of promotion of business and are allowable deduction under Section 37.
JSW Cement Ltd Vs Addl.CIT/Dy. ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29958 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Nature of payment which has been claimed to be compensation for vacating land and handing over peaceful possession, is nothing but compensation made to the self.
Jayapal Sanjay. Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29957 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Payment under consideration cannot be considered to be FTS as it is not related to managerial, technical or consultancy services and even AE does not provided any service to the Assessee.
Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29956 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The transaction involved is free sale and amount paid to AE for supply of Red Hat Subscription is the price of maintaining and support services and not the price for license of software.
Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29955 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is nothing on record to suggest that the requirement of law that the bad debt was written-off as irrecoverable in the Assessee’s accounts for the previous year had been satisfied.
Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29952 (SC)
-
If Assessee is able to satisfy the Revenue that the services rendered in the relevant AY were similar to the services rendered in the subsequent AY, the reassessment proceeding would be closed.
Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29944 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue’s suspicion on impugned transaction, just because HRPL is an entity associated to the Assessee which derived substantial return on the option deposits from this arrangement, is factually perverse.
K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29943 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (2016 Act) prescribes substantive provisions and is not merely procedural.
Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29936 (SC)
-
Assessee is not permitted to file the review on whether the Assessee can be treated at par with the Central/State Government employees or not for the purpose of Section 17.
Indian Institute Of Science Vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29929 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.