-
Section 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational / substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Therefore notice issued to a dead person is not valid.
RANIBEN KHIMJI PATEL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (3), MUMBAI, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – RANGE 7, MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28425 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86615&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under Section 13(2)(b), the burden of showing that the rent charged by the respondent/assessee was not adequate is on the revenue.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI VERSUS HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28424 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86616&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisional attachment of the subject land under Section-281B of the Act at the instance of the revenue is not sustainable in law.
M/S. RAGHUNANDAN ENTERPRISE VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -4, SURAT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28423 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86617&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The PCIT was not justified in invoking the power under Section 263 of the I.T. Act as it would amount to revising a decision taken by the PCIT on such declaration by the assessing officer which is not contemplated under the Income Tax Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 9, KOLKATA VERSUS MANJU OSATWAL
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28422 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86618&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no stage of formal admission of the appeal or condonation application before the tribunal and therefore the reference to this term of admission of appeal in the circular is superfluous.
RAKESH GARG SON OF SHRI KAILASH CHAND GARG VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28421 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86620&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Assessing Officer has not given any reason as to why the chargeability of tax under Section 172 of the Act does not cover time charter of ships for which payment is made to non- resident.
Terapanth Foods Limited Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28420 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
-
The determining test to qualify for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) lies in the final motivation on which the institution functions, regardless of what extraneous profit it may acquire in pursuit of same.
Sharda Mandir High school Vs The Commissioner of Income tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28419 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(23C)(vi)
-
Payment of interest on the loans which have not been proved to be for business purpose and the waiver of the loan are not interrelated but are mutually exclusive.
MATRIX CELLULAR SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-16 (2) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28418 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95692&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue has failed to conduct complete enquiries to bring much needed evidences on record. Hence, in the interest of justice to both the parties, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
ACCENTOR INFOTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28417 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95693&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the provision of Section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act, there is no limit prescribed for application of receipts and accumulation of receipts.
SWASTHYA SEWA SANSTHAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28416 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95698&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether compensation is received for negative restrictive covenant or non-compete with business of the company, compensation relatable to such activity would be a capital receipt.
NEVILLE TULI VERSUS THE ITO 3 (2) (4) , MUMBAI AND INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28415 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86595&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The initiation of proceedings for imposing penalty and the consequent imposition was within the jurisdiction and authority of the assessing officer. Hence there is no merit in the challenge raised.
MALLELIL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28414 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86597&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of granting a further opportunity to the CIT(E) on the facts of the case on hand does not arise. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the tribunal.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA VERSUS MAYAPUR DHAM PILGRIM AND VISITORS TRUST
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28413 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86600&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The legislature does not envisage any sort of valuation for the purpose of Section 68 and the addition made for premium received for AY 2012-13 is incorrect in law.
Confiance Trading Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO 6(2)(1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28412 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
There was no irregularity about the nature, source of such bank deposits, which was examined by the Revenue and thus provisions of Section 69A / 69B were wrongly applied.
Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (EX) -1(1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28411 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The CIT(E) has erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the AO has failed to make necessary enquiries with regard to the nature of investments made by the Assessee.
Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28410 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The resultant loss incurred by the Assessee was rightly claimed as revenue expenditure and thus revenue is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the Assessee.
Refex Industries Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28409 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
There is no material to justify the formation of reason to believe that income escaped assessment.
Tata Sons Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28408 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Assessee is eligible for benefit under Section 54.
Charu Agarwal Vs DCIT (International Taxation)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28407 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.
Nishith Madanlal Desai Vs Commisioner of Income Tax-1(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28406 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.