-
No expenditure has been incurred for development of land, thus a non-agricultural land cannot be regarded as a trading asset without anything more.
M/s. Shalibhadra Developers Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28174 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
When the factual position and law is read conjointly, it appears that such capital receipts are not susceptible to tax u/s 115JB. The AO cannot bring such capital receipts to tax by including it in book profit artificially.
Ganeshsagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28167 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
In the present case, there is no prima-facie opinion formed by the Assessing Officer before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act; therefore, the reopening of the assessment is bad in the eyes of law.
SMT. MEENABEN DILIPKUMAR SONI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (2) (5) , AHMEDABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28138 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94918&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that whenever unaccounted receipts unearthed during any investigation, then the gross receipts are not to be taxed.
DCIT, CIR. 4 (1) (1) AHMEDABAD. VERSUS SAMBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28136 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94926&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Payment of entire tax including surcharge and cess is eligible for MAT credit u/s 115JAA(2A).
Sayaji Industries Ltd Vs The Dy. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28079 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 115JAA(2A)
-
There was no deliberate act on part of the assessee to conceal/furnish inaccurate particulars of income.
MS VARSHA JITENDRA TEKWANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (4) VADODARA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28044 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no scope for making any adjustment for the gift while determining the full value of consideration under the deeming provisions of section 50C.
Nilesh Tanukumar Patel Vs I.T.O.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27929 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 50C
-
Revenue is directed to consider allowability or otherwise of claim of the Assessee in accordance with provisions of Sec. 10(5).
Hareshkumar Ratilal Kansara Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27910 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 10(5)
-
Once Form no. 15G has been received by the assessee, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is uncalled for, despite its alleged non-submission to the department.
B. Nanji A. Mehta Lodha & Co. Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27906 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 194A, 40(a)(ia)
-
Section 263 could be taken if twin conditions viz. impugned order should be erroneous, and it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Kaushikbhai P. Patel Vs Pr.Commissioner of IT-7
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27905 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 263
-
Rule 17A nowhere envisages the existence of a trust deed or its registration, the factum of existence of trust can also be established by producing documents evidencing the creation of the trust.
The Panchkuva Cloth Merchant Association Vs The CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 12AA
-
(i) The assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act on the sale of land, as the assessee was holding more than one residential unit. (ii) Assuming the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, then it was the duty of the revenue to provide the rightful claim of the assessee which is available under the provisions of law but the same was not claimed by the assessee under the wrong believe. As such, the Revenue cannot take the benefit of the ignorance of the assessee rather it was duty-bound to extend the benefit available to the assessee under the provisions of law.
SANJAY SURENDRABHAI GOR VERSUS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3 (2) AHMEDABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27620 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93966&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Though it could be said that land was purchased by Assessee, in reality transaction never materialised as such no addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b).
Nitin Ishwarbhai Patel Vs Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27142 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)
-
MMC Bank was sick bank and the amount of FDs deposited by the assessee-bank with MMC Bank has not received by the assessee bank.
ACIT, SABARKANTHA CIR. HIMATNAGAR. VERSUS THE HIMATNAGAR NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27071 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=91492&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no question for treating the amount of share capital received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68
M/S. CALICA RESOURCES PVT. LTD. VERSUS I.T.O., WARD-1 (1) (3), AHMEDABAD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27057 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=91428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue cannot pick and choose certain amounts representing the share of the beneficiaries and tax in the hands of the assessee and simultaneously not charging the tax in the hands of the assessee with respect to majority of the beneficiaries.
M/S AQUAGEL PROMOTERS GROUP SHARE HOLDERS TRUST VERSUS THE ITO, WARD-2 (3) BHAVNAGAR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27029 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=91282&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no provision under the law for making the assessment on protective basis.
PRAVINKUMAR VALJIBHAI PUJARA HUF VERSUS I.T.O, WARD-2, PATAN.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26951 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90920&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessment order was passed on 30.6.2017, and the clause, on the strength of which this reference was made to the TPO, stand omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2017. Therefore, no proceedings under section 263 should have been undertaken by the ld. Commissioner.
SHRI ASHISH SUBODCHANDRA SHAH VERSUS PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26939 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90892&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 153C contemplates documents seized or requisitioned during the search. It does not talk of information.
SBG INFRASTRUCTURE LLP. VERSUS DCIT, CENT. CIR. 2 BARODA. AND JCIT (OSD) , CENT. CIR. 2 BARODA. VERSUS SBG INFRASTRUCTURE LLP.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90734&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Advances given by the lender was not for the individual benefit of the shareholder but for business purposes and therefore such transactions would not fall within the sweep of deeming fiction created under s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD VERSUS M/S. KRISHNA COIL CUTTERS PVT. LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26883 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90647&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.