Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle
State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.orgInterpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle
State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.orgS. 245C : Settlement Commission – Second application – No bar for filing second application [ S. 245D(1), 245K(2), Art , 226 ]
CIT v. Adhiparasakhi Charitable Medical Educational Cultural Trust ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – December – P. 167 /Trust (2020) 121 taxmann.com 24/ (2021) 2021] 277 Taxman 333 (Mad) (HC) . ( Mad ) (HC)S. 69 :Unexplained investments – HSBC Bank -Black Money- Burden is on revenue to prove that money belongs to the assessee- Mere holding a joint bank account does not mean that the money belongs to the assessee- Addition is deleted [ S.69A ]
Kamal Galani v. ACIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 273/ 207 TTJ 1049 (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.orgS. 68 : Cash credits- Source of source – Cash deposited – Brother in law and close friends – How money was transferred from Bangalore to Goa was not satisfactorily explained – – Addition is held to be justified .[ S. 153A ]
CIT v. Sadiq Sheikh ( 2020) 429 ITR 163 / 122 taxmann.com 39 /(2021) 276 Taxman 292 / 197 DTR 191/ 318 CTR 382 ( Bom) (HC) (Goa Bench) /CIT v. Sadia Sheikh (2020) 429 ITR 163 / 122 taxmann.com 39 /(2021)276 Taxman 292/ 197 DTR 191/ 318 CTR 382 (Bom.)(HC) ,www.itatonline.org/Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed , Sadiq Sheikh v. CIT ( 2021) 277 Taxman 594 ( SC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Temporary suspension of business -Real estate business-Work in progress- Change in method of accounting – Genuineness of expenses not doubted – Allowable as deduction [ S.145 ]
Highstreet Developers Pvt Ltd v .ITO (2020) The Chamber’s Journal – December – P.179 ( Mum) (Trib)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue- Foreign travel expenditure -Acquisition of business- Repair and maintenance – Bonafide expenditure incurred , wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business would be allowable .
Elgi Equipments Ltd v .JCIT (2020) 120 taxmann.com 142/ (2021) 276 Taxman 141 ( Mad ) (HC)S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty -Interpretation of statutes and DTAA – DTAA- India – Singapore [ S. 9(1) (vii), 90 , 195 , Art . 12 ]
DIT v. Autodesk Asia Pvt. Ltd. ( 2020) 275 Taxman 319/ 120 taxmann.com 324 (Karn)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS.139: Return- A representative office of a foreign enterprise is not a taxable unit-The foreign enterprise is the taxable unit- A return of income filed in the name of the representative office, with the PAN of the enterprise, offering only the income of the representative office & excluding the other Indian income of the enterprise is not proper- DTAA- India -Germany [ S. 9 (1) (i), 115A(5), Art .7, 11(5) ]
DZ Bank AG – India Representative Office v. DCIT (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.orgS. 90 :Double taxation relief – Book Profit – The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India- The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law – Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. [ S.115JB ]
Bank of India v. ACIT (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.orgS. 90 :Double taxation relief – Foreign Tax Credit – One has to take a judicious call as to whether the view adopted by the source jurisdiction of taxing the income is a reasonable and bonafide view, which may or may not be the same as the legal position in the residence jurisdiction- The view of the treaty partner should be adopted unless it is wholly unreasonable or manifestly erroneous- Entitle for Foreign Tax Credit -. DTAA -India -Japan [ Art 12 , 22 ]
Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co. v. ACIT (2021)85 ITR 49 ( SN)/197 DTR 19/ 209 TTJ 1 /187 ITD 750 (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org