-
Proper resolution of the difficulties of assessees should be made at the level of the administration itself without the requirement of Court’s intervention.
TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, SHRI MANOJ GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THROUGH CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTER OF FINANCE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28215 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86408&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Re-opening of the assessment without any basis and merely change of opinion is not permissible while exercising the powers under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act.
BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 (1), MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1 AND UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28214 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86409&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For income to be considered as disclosed income, the same should have been disclosed in the return filed by the assessee before the search or requisition
M/S. KELD ELLENTOFT INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III (3) , CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28213 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86412&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since reopening of the assessment being at the behest of the audit party, the reopening of the assessment is misconceived, incorrect and bad in law.
MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14 (2) (1) , MUMBAI & 2 ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28212 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86413&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 143(1) prescribes that no adjustments to the income shall be made till the same is intimated to the assessee and 30 days time is given to the assessee to respond to the same.
TARAMANDAL CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS THE ACIT (CPC) , BANGALORE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28210 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report within time by the assessee. Therefore, imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act for belated filing the audit report is not correct.
SHRI T. MUNIAPPAN VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 TRICHY
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28209 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95128&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee-HUF in the present case complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under Section 54 of the Act.
SAROJ ARORA VERSUS ITO WARD- 59 (3) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28208 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95131&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The truck operators if not the truck owners, cannot be considered as the sub contractors for the purpose of Section 194C (2) of the Act.
SRI. SHIVAMURTHY VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28207 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86387&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Undisclosed amount determined by the Assessing Officer has a direct nexus with the incriminating materials seized during the search.
M/S. PYRAMID FILMS INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28206 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86392&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal correctly made the order in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition made by CIT(A) under Section 68.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28205 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86395&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
By wrongly padding the accounts, Assessee may have violated other statutes but that by itself cannot be the reason to make additions under Section 68.
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28204 (HC-DELHI)
-
It is established fact that DCF Method is based on projected figures, on availability of the actual figures, if the future projections are not met, it cannot be said that the projections were wrong.
Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28203 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
There was no single test or criteria to decide whether a receipt is capital or business receipt and it is a fact-dependent issue.
Khevana Securities and Finstock Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28202 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Once learned PCIT held that the assessing officer has failed to enquire into the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), he should have left the issue at that and no further.
RUPA SAMIR MEHTA VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-19, MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28201 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95104&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Neither the assessee furnished the working of disallowances under section 14A, nor the lower authority made the disallowance as per the formula prescribed under Rule 8D, therefore, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
SMT. KRISHNABEN GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3) (3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28200 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95105&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No infirmity in the impugned order of the AO, more so, in view of the reasoning given in the remand report submitted by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A).
ACIT, CIR. 5 AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S. NEESA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28199 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95106&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer invoking Section 154(2) to rectify the assessment order is wholly untenable for the reason that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record to invoke the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4 (1) (2) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. MPHASIS SOFTWARE & SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28198 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86378&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The usage of expression in the reasons 'there has been escapement of income by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts' is clearly made as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to Section 147 of the Act.
TECHENGG PROJECT SERVICES AND EQUIPMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. MAHANDER SINGH CHAUHAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28197 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86381&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no withdrawal by the partners from capital accounts and therefore there cannot be any income liable to tax in their hands.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28196 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86383&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 68 to be inapplicable as it deals with any sum that is found credited in the books of the Assessee and not the shares received as gift.
Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28195 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 56(2)(viia), 68
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.