-
Service of notice in case of an assessee residing abroad, by affixing the same on the main door of his local residence in India is not a valid service.
BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3) , BATHINDA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28456 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95772&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT has not extended the time-limit for passing any order under Section 144C(13) of the Act vide Notification No.74/2021 dated 25th June 2021, and hence, there is no extension of time-limit to 30th September 2021 to pass the order under Section 144C(13).
SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28454 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86641&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing officer could not have based his conclusion solely on the alleged admission of the director of the assessee during the survey operations
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA VERSUS D.K. BASAK JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28453 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86644&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT by its order dt. Sep 28,2021, to avoid genuine hardship to assessees, authorised the admission of application for settlement filed after Jan 31, 2021 but before Sep 30, 2021 and treat such applications as valid and process them as pending application as per Section 245A(eb).
Pradeep Kumar Naredi Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28452 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The Assessing Officer was duty bound to provide all the documents called for by petitioner and his reluctance to provide these documents only would make the court draw adverse inference against respondent.
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28451 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Application of Section 69C is far-fetched.
EIPR India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C
-
The argument of giving cognizance to the returned income de hors the audited accounts, which is admittedly higher than the presumptive rate u/s. 44AE, can hardly have the sanction of law.
AMBIKA TRANSPORT CO. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-DAMOH (M.P.)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28449 (ITAT-JABALPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95760&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of ld.CIT(A) on the merits of the case. Hence, we uphold his order in this regard and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.
ITO-6 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. KLEEM CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CRYSTAL ACQUA BOTTLING PVT. LTD.) AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28448 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95762&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notwithstanding addition of assessee’s income on account of undervaluation of closing stock in the absence of any circumstances justifying the interference that assessee has consciously concealed its income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.
M/S. SHETH SHIP BREAKING CORPORATION VERSUS JT. CIT, RANGE-1, BHAVNAGAR
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28447 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95763&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside.
TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (3) (1) AND ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28446 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86633&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are satisfied that the notice dated 10th January 2014 impugned in this petition is barred by limitation since it is issued beyond a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b).
PAVAN MORARKA AND RACHNA MORARKA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2 (3) , MUMBAI, THE UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28445 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86634&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Technology only will be considered as made available when the person acquiring such knowledge is possessed of the same enabling him to apply in future at his own.
Autoliv ASP Inc Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28444 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
There has been a full and true disclosure of the material facts by petitioner and it is a clear case of change of opinion to take a different view relying on the same set of documents. Change in opinion cannot construe 'reason to believe'.
MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3 (2) & ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28443 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86626&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the Assessing Officer finds that there was excess stock, in absence of explanation by the assessee, the conclusion is inescapable that the excess stock, if any, was from undisclosed sources.
SURAJ BHAN OIL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28442 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86627&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For allowing a cash credit, the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the A.O. regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the Investor/Share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction.
M/S. ROYAL INFRAMART PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 21 (4) , NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28441 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95735&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A protective assessment is very much at par with the substantive one.
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) HYDERABAD VERSUS M/S NANCY DIVAKAR HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28440 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95736&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The bank account of an assessee cannot be held to be the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, thus, no addition under Sec. 68 of the Act could have validly been made in respect of a simpliciter deposit made by the assessee before us in her bank account.
SMT. DHEERAJ DEVI KOTHARI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON (C.G.)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28439 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95741&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, an assessee can file a revised return before the completion of assessment or within one year from the end of the respective assessment year whichever is earlier.
SHRI RAJESH DEVRAJ MEHRA VERSUS ITO-10 (1 (2) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28438 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95743&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, the courts are bound to construe them in the ordinary sense in their judgments.
Shell India Markets Pvt Ltd Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28437 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
If the return of income is revised within the prescribed time it does not mean that revised return of income has to be accepted without there being proper reasons for the revision and its acceptability.
Ecohomes Township LLP Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28436 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.