-
HUF is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 54B even prior to insertion of the words the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family by the Finance Act 2013.
Sitaram Pahariya (HUF) Vs I.T.O – Ward 6(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28275 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 54B
-
Inappropriate words in the penalty notice were not struck off and the notice does not specify under which limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) was the penalty proceedings initiated. Therefore penalty is being deleted.
Deshpal Singh Kohli Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28274 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
-
Mere doubt cannot lead to revision of assessment order unless shown that AO failed to apply his mind, or that his view was wrong in facts or law.
Shivratan Shrigopal Mundada Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28273 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 54F
-
No details are filed about the type of business and prime facie it seems Assessee is offering business income on a presumptive basis, liable to be taxed u/s 44AF/44AD.
Chandra Sahu Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28272 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 69A
-
Period of four years would be reasonable period of time for initiation of proceeding under section 201.
Mphasis Ltd Vs DDIT (International Tax)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28271 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
A loan accepted as correct in principle, could not be treated as amount received since there is a pre-condition of its return to be made to the creditor party.
Hajeebu Venkata Seeta Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28270 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 56(2)(vi)
-
If the PCIT was of the opinion that the Revenue had not made requisite enquiries, then he should made the requisite enquiries and brought on record as to where the AO was wrong.
Concern India Foundation Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28269 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Revenue, it would not be open to it to reopen the assessment based on the very same material to take another view.
Lintas India Private Limited Vs Union of India and Anr
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28268 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
When all the documents and explanations from the Assessee have been scrutinized and examined by the AO, the assessment cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Shergil Harjit Vs Pr. CIT-1
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28267 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Denial of deduction u/s 80P for sole reason of its being situated in Mumbai is not legally sustainable.
Walkeshwar Chandanbala Co Operative Housing Society Ltd Vs CPC, Ward -19( 3)( 1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28266 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Once addition was made under one provision, it cannot be made under another provision.
Autozilla Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs Income-tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28265 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
For the purpose of calculation of capital gains u/s 48 the fair market value of the assessee on the date of such conversion or treatment shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset.
M/S. KYORI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 (1) , HYDERABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28264 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95285&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the Assessing Officer has taken a view based on the explanation as well as evidence filed by the assessee, it cannot be the case of lack of enquiry. At the best, it is inadequate enquiry and, therefore, in such a situation the assessment order cannot be cancelled or set aside.
SHRI VARUN KHANDELWAL VERSUS PR. CIT, DELHI : 24, NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28263 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Principles of natural justice demands that the assessee should be given an opportunity to rebut the statement of third party which is the basis for addition and an opportunity to cross-examine the same person, if demanded.
M/S. PRIYA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 25, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28262 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95288&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Operational loss computed by the assessee coming under the purview of principle of mutuality cannot enter the computation of total income as envisaged u/s.2(45) of the Act.
SECUNDERABAD CLUB, HYDERABAD VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10 (2) , HYDERABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28261 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95290&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the interest of justice we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh after providing an opportunity in favour of the petitioner to provide/furnish the relevant information.
ARPITHA AGENCIES VERSUS ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28260 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86440&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the Income Tax Officer.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS ASST. /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 77 (1) (1) , MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-7, MUMBAI, THE UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28259 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86441&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The details imperative to be disclosed to the auditor and consequently in Form 3CEB were fairly disclosed by the assessee and it was not Revenue's case that the particulars disclosed were inaccurate or defective.
Ruchi J. Oil Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28258 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 271AA
-
A notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021.
Sudesh Taneja Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28257 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
It is not open to the Assessing Officer to try to evade from the binding effect of a Supreme Court decision by trying to find out distinguishing features.
Mylan Laboratories Limited Vs The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/income-Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28256 (HC-AP)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.