-
Whether when the Assessing Officer has clearly demonstrated that the cash was deposited in their accounts which had its source from the assessee as he had benefitted by the said deposit of cash, in that case adverse inference has to be drawn against the assessee.
TULIP ENGINEERING PVT LTD. Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3480 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income tax - Sections 133(6), 143(1), 148
-
Whether the statement recorded u/s 132(4) had evidentiary value since the same is made voluntarily without any threat or coercion.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Vs. AGEW STEEL MANUFACTURING PVT LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3479 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax - Sections 132(4), 133A, 260A
-
Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that 8% premium on the licences purchased by it from outside parties for sale or import would be liable to be treated as cash assistance u/s. 28(iiib) against its export eligible to deduction u/s. 80HHC? Whether cut and polished diamonds shall qualify for deduction u/s 80HHC.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. AMI DIAMONDS EXPORTERS
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3478 (HC-GUJARAT) · Income Tax - Sections 28(iiib), 80HHC
-
Whether it will serve much purpose in making a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A, when the date of valuation of a property was 30 years old
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17 Vs. SHANTILAL J SHAH
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3477 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax - Section 55A
-
Whether a property is purchased for personal use of the President of the assessee society, when the sale consideration and stamp duty was paid from the funds of the Society and the sale deed was also entered in the representative capacity as President.
MARSHALL SCHOOL SOCIETY Vs. CHAIRMAN CBDT, DEHI AND ANOTHER, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3476 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Income Tax - Section 10 (23C)(vi)
-
Whether the Department needs to consider the representation of the assessee , before passing the final orders on merit.
M/s SRI DURGA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3475 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax - Sections 221(1), 226(3)
-
Whether any substantial question of law arises when the Tribunal allows bond registration charges as per the provisions of Sec 37(1).
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Vs. M/s HINDUSTAN ORGANICS CHEMICALS LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3474 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income Tax - Sections - 36(i)(va), 37(1), 43B, 143(3)
-
Whether the order passed on the objections raised by the assessee would prevent the assessing officer from exercising his power on merits while passing the assessment order.
KALANITHI MARAN, KAVERY KALANITHI Vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3473 (HC-MADRAS) · Income Tax – Sections 143(3), 147.
-
Whether merely because the manufacturing operations of the assessee's unit have ceased, a fault lies in the decision of the Tribunal that the severance pay is allowable deduction under Section 35DDA.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 Vs. M/s DIAGEO INDIA PVT LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3472 (HC-BOMBAY) · Income tax - Sections 35DDA, 37(1), 143(1), 143 (3)
-
Whether if the details produced in respect of the recipients and the recipient has declared income in their return of income, the assessee can be liable for payment of TDS once again.
M/s PENTA VISION Vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3471 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax - Sections 133A, 194C, 194J, 201(1), 201(1A).
-
Whether in case there existed no reasonable cause for accepting loans or deposits or aggregate of such loans or deposits of Rs. 20,000 or more from various persons otherwise than crossed cheques and drafts and as such committed contravention of the provisions of s. 269SS, penalty u/s 271D can be attracted.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SHRI LISTIN STEPHEN
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3470 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Income Tax – Sections 269SS, 271D, 273D
-
Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(C) can be levied when there was no doubt on the genuineness of the claimed expenditure, the only question was the treatment given by the assesee to those expenditure which was a debatable issue.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M/s LEARNING UNIVERSE PVT LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3469 (ITAT-DELHI) · Income Tax - Section 271(1)(C)
-
Whether when the reasons recorded by the AO while reopening the assessment proceedings u/s 147 were communicated to the assessee and the assessee could not file any objection to the same, the reopening was correctly held as valid.
JAGDISH C SACHDEV Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3468 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Income Tax - Sections 68, 131, 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3), 147, 148, 151, 234A, 234B, 250
-
S. 147: In view of the verdicts of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts & Chhabil Dass Agarwal a s. 148 notice & order on objections cannot be challenged in a Writ Petition
JCIT vs. Kalanithi Maran
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3467 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 147
-
CPC hauled up for harassing assessee by imposing tax of 60% on LTCG & refusing to rectify
Mohan Kant Bansal vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3466 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
S. 54/54F: Two flats, even though acquired under different agreements & from different sellers, are one residential unit if there is a common kitchen
CIT vs. Devdas Naik
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3465 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections. 54, 54F
-
S. 201 TDS: Even if the statute does not lay down a time limit, proceedings must be completed within a limited period
DIT (IT) vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3464 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 201
-
S. 37(1): Expenditure on education of director is personal expenses & not allowable deduction. Assessee to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to dept
Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3463 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 37(1)
-
Whether appellate authorities can entertain a claim where the assessee had made initial claim of deduction of interest on the borrowings as deductible business expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) and thereafter filed revised statement of computation of income whereby the initial claim was given up and was disallowed by the assessee himself and instead interest was made under section 24(b) which was the legally correct claim while computing the income from house property and the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the same should have been made by way of revised return of income.
ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MR CHETAN K MEHTA
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3462 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Income Tax - Sections 24(b), 36(1)(iii), 143(3)
-
Whether reopening of assessment is justified where neither in the reasons recorded nor anywhere in the assessment order there was any allegation by the AO that the assessee had not disclosed truly and fully all material facts necessary for its assessment.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M/s QUALITY CARE INDIA LTD.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 3461 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Income Tax - Sections 143(3), 147, 148, 153A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.