-
The Petitioner sent a reply before expiry of deadline, therefore revenue is directed to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the petitioner on March 15, 2021.
Antony Alphonse Kevin Alphonse Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28295 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Since there is no possibility of disclosure of full and true income, regular assessment would be a proper method and settlement cannot be made.
Akash Fertility Centre and Hospital Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28294 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case, there is no necessity to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the assessee.
SHRI JITENDRA KAPILDEO GUPTA, M/S. SUBU CHEM PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 6, PUNE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28293 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95329&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee cannot be denied the deduction in the value of closing stock on account of non-moving/unsaleable items.
SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD, ACIT (OSD) , CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD, DCIT-4 (1) (1) , (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-8) , AHMEDABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28292 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95336&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Capital asset transferred by the charitable trust and utilized for acquiring another capital asset would alone cannot be the criteria for granting exemption under Section 11(1A).
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. ST. JOSEPH’S MONASTERY
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28291 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86446&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the Appellate Tribunal has factually recorded the finding that there was no suppression of facts and the assessee has originally disclosed the receipt of the sale property, merely claimed deduction it cannot be said that there was wilful evasion of Tax.
SHRI. H. AMEERDEEN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 3 (1), CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28290 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86449&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The genuineness of the activities of the Trust is not a matter to be looked into at the time of dealing with the issue of registration of the Trust u/s 12AA.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28289 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86450&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As long as there is no deliberate Act or willful act on the part of the accused to evade the payment of tax, mere failure to pay the tax will not constitute the offence under Section 276C(2).
S.P. VELAYUTHAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRLCE – 14 (1) , CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28288 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86451&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deduction under section 54F of the Act can be claimed to the extent of amount of capital gain utilized till the filing of the return under Section 139(4) of the Act.
SMT. CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35 (2)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28287 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95303&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once learned PCIT has no administrative power under Section 263(1) of the Act to revise the order of the TPO, he cannot revise the assessment order passed thereafter in compliance to the provision contained under Section 92CA(4).
M/S JCB INDIA LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-13 (2) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28286 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95305&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case for assessment year 2005 - 06 there is no transfer of asset, and therefore, there is no chargeability of capital gain u/s 45 of the act.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK CRESCENZO VERSUS THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -2 (1) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28285 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95312&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even on merits the assessee’s claim for depreciation on spectrum fee is allowable under section 32 of the Act as the provisions contained under section 35ABB of the Act being not applicable to the issue at hand.
M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD.) VERSUS PCIT-CIRCLE (5) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28284 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95314&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There cannot be a penalty where there was bond fide error in the claim.
M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD., C/O. ANUJ MEHTA VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (3) , AHMEDABAD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28283 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95315&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the genuineness of the transaction is not free from doubt, it is implied that the creditworthiness of the parties was not satisfactory so as to advance the loan to the assessee.
DCIT CIRCLE-1 (1) (1), AHMEDABAD VERSUS J.P. FINCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. FINCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95316&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Assessee has already offered the rental income under the head house property. Therefore, assessee is allowed to claim all eligible deductions including interest on borrowed capital.
Hima Bindu Putta Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28281 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 24
-
The service of notice cannot be termed as valid and is non-compliant to the provisions of Sec. 282.
Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28280 (ITAT-INDORE) · Sections 143(2), 282
-
The Revenue is bound to grant personal hearing if the statute itself provides for the same.
Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28279 (HC-DELHI)
-
When statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the Revenue cannot veer away from the same.
Satia Industries Limited Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28278 (HC-DELHI)
-
Penalty not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) owing its corresponding deletion of addition in the quantum appeal.
Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28277 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The Assessee has provided the details of the parties to whom interest is paid including banks, non-banking finance companies and some private lenders at a rate ranging from 5% to 24% p.a, but CIT(A) failed to prove any related party transaction within the meaning of Sec. 40A.
Shri Bhavarlal Mangilal Jain Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28276 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.