-
Revenue having not clearly established the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Act by the assessee ,its entire case resting on interpretation of entry in a diary found during search,it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D.
M/S. MADHUVAN CORPORATION VERSUS ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28497 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95896&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The principle of natural justice is to be applied in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances and the compelling situations.
ADITYA TRIPATHI VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) , ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) , HYDERABAD (TELANGANA)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28495 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86677&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When sales return does not qualify as expenditure in terms of Section 37(1), the provision for sales return cannot be allowed u/s 37(1).
Herbalife International India Private Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28494 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37(1)
-
Since Assessee placed the list of rural branches along with supporting documents, it was Revenue's duty to examine the classification as per Explanation (ia) to Section 36(1)(viia).
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28493 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
In the present case, there is no qualm over the fact that the Assessee had entered into a contract with ONGC on turn-key basis for enhancing the exploration/production capacity of the platform.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs Deputy Income-tax (International Taxation) 4(1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28492 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 44BB
-
Once the requisite documents such as PAN/ Bank statements etc are filed by the Assessee, the onus shifts on the department to prove that the share capital subscription is genuine.
Lotus Logistics & Developers Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28491 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
We do not find any reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the authorities and we find no option but to confirm the additions.
PRAHLAD SINGH BISHT VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) , GHAZIABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28490 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95835&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Subscription charges receivable for Foreign Telecasting Companies (FTCs) shall continue to be taxed in accordance with guidelines prescribed for advertisement revenue.
CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC. VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-2 (2) (1) , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28489 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95842&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-76 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S PARSONS BRINCKERSHOFF INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28488 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95851&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Condition precedent for resorting to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act are not satisfied in the present case.
SURANI STEEL TUBES LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28487 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86662&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The entire criminal proceeding whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 276(B) and 278(B) of the Income Tax Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad, are hereby, quashed.
M/S. MAITHON POWER LIMITED, VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND., THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, DHANBAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28486 (HC-JHARKHAND) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86664&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The payments made by the petitioner to the non-resident assessess in the execution of the contract with ONGC is properly assessable under the provisions on Section 44BB of the Act, 1961.
LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, VERSUS GIRISH DAVE, DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , BOMBAY, VINAY SINHA, DEPUTY INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 4 (1) MUMBAI AND UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28485 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86665&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is established principle that there has to some mens rea on part of the Assessee and there should be some amount of tax evaded or concealed, which is absent in the present case.
K.E.Gnanavel Raja Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28484 (HC-MADRAS)
-
One residential house may consist of several independent units and that cannot be factor to disallow claim made under Section 54/54F.
Dipti Nalin Parikh Vs ITO-17(1)(4)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28483 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54
-
Advance on account of business transaction cannot be categorized as loans so as to attract deeming fiction under section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI VERSUS M/S DNP FOODS PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28482 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95828&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the assessee has claimed that it has received sale consideration in cash for transfer of property, it is for the AO to disprove the claim of the assessee with cogent reason and sufficient evidences.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, CHENNAI-34. VERSUS M/S. AP SRIDHAR (HUF) , M/S. AP SANDHYA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28481 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95829&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Discount offered by the assessee to dealers for distribution of SIM cards and recharge coupons is in the nature of commission which is liable for TDS u/s.194H.
MR. KRISHNASWAMY YOGANANDAN VERSUS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-XIV CHENNAI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28480 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95831&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions of section 11(1)(d) specifying the income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction are independent of section 11(1)(a).
JT. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) (OSD) CIR. 2, AHMEDABAD. VERSUS DIVYA JYOTI TRUST TEJAS EYE HOSPITAL SUTHAR FALIYAAT & POST – MANDVI SURAT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28479 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95832&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The tenancy right was a capital asset, surrender of tenancy right was a transfer and the consideration received thereof was a capital receipt within the meaning of Section 45.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I, KOLKATA VERSUS SMT. SHIKHA ROY
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28478 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86658&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deduction of any sum being interest payable under clause (d) of section 43B of the Act, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause, which has been converted into a loan or borrowing, shall not be deemed to have been actually paid.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TAMIL NADU-I, MADRAS VERSUS M/S. TAMIL NADU WATER INVESTMENT CO. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28477 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86659&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.