-
There was no material whatsoever produced by the Assessee to disprove the conclusions drawn by Revenue and positively prove that it purchased machineries in question for R&D and that it carried out R&D activities.
The Official Liquidator in case of M/s. Jupiter Bioscience Limited Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28140 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 35(2)(ia)
-
Under sec. 273B of the Act, the penalty u/s 271B shall not be imposable, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the provisions of sec.44AB.
M/S. SLV HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2) BANGALORE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28139 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94916&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, there is no prima-facie opinion formed by the Assessing Officer before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act; therefore, the reopening of the assessment is bad in the eyes of law.
SMT. MEENABEN DILIPKUMAR SONI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (2) (5) , AHMEDABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28138 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94918&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARDOLI VERSUS RADHE FLUD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28137 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94924&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that whenever unaccounted receipts unearthed during any investigation, then the gross receipts are not to be taxed.
DCIT, CIR. 4 (1) (1) AHMEDABAD. VERSUS SAMBHAV INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28136 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94926&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We allow the grounds raised by the assessee with regard to inflated expenditure by way of sub-contract payments in all the appeals under consideration.
MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD. VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 3, HYDERABAD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28135 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94928&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there is no change in income assessed the order of AO cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
KAMAL VYAS VERSUS PCIT-17, MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28134 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94933&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee would be entitled to claim bad debts as well as fall in value of inventory as deduction, subject to satisfaction of the conditions for such allowance laid down in the Act.
Middleby Celfrost Innovations Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28133 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Even in terms of Section 50D, cost of construction would not be the appropriate method to arrive at the full market value of consideration.
Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd. & Another Vs THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28132 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
The transfer petitions have become infructuous in view of the new Scheme and also the application for intervention is being disposed of.
LAKSHYA BUDHIRAJA & ANR. ETC. Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ETC.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28131 (SC)
-
DRP’s directions to delete the TP addition is being upheld.
GBT India Pvt. Ltd Vs National E–Assessment Centre
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28130 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Sec.250(2) provides Assessee right to be heard when the CIT(A) decides the issue on merits and therefore if any direction was passed by the CIT(A), Assessee should be given an opportunity to meet out such observation.
Lokhandwala Foundation Vs Income-tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28129 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
AO is directed to pass fresh draft assessment order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Bradken India Private Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28128 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Provision made in the subsequent year cannot be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viia).
Canara Bank Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28127 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 36(1)(viia)
-
Since Form 10 is sent by a speed post within the limitation period, therefore it is acceptable.
Adarsh Bal Niketan Vs ITO (Exemption)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28126 (ITAT-DEHRADUN) · Section 10(23C)(vi)
-
Merely because the parties are related parties and there is no evidence of any collusion, the loss incurred by the Assessee by writing off the amount could not be disallowed.
SDN & Co Vs The Income-tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28125 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(vii)
-
The Revenue will only enquire the issues which are recorded for selection of the Assessee’s case under limited scrutiny, and thus the PCIT cannot say that Revenue failed to enquire on any other issues.
Naveen Partap Tyagi Vs Pr. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28124 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee did not have DAPE in India and no income or any disallowance of commission payment by the PE was liable to be attributable in India, even if a DAPE had existed in India.
Mitsui & Co Vs DCIT (International Taxation)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28123 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The Revenue official under VsV Act has no authority to dispose of the revision application filed by Assessee u/s 264 which was filed with a request for condonation of delay and was pending adjudication on the date of declaration under VsV Act.
Dhanraj Malchand Rathi Vs Union of India
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28122 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Disallowance cannot be made solely on the ground that the vouchers are self-made and thus are bogus in nature.
Mercedez-Benz India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28121 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 35AB
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.