-
A mere statement that the land was situated in urban area and the agriculture was not carried out at the relevant point of time could not be concluded as suppression.
H. Ameerdeen Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28365 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Provision of section 133A(4) prohibits the income tax authority to remove cash, stock or other valuable article and it is only upon non-cooperation or refusal by the person under search that power under section 131(1) can be resorted.
RAJ ENTERPRISE VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, SURAT.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28364 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95558&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act on account of sale of the property and the subsequent investment in the residential property.
CHARU AGARWAL VERSUS DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , CIRCLE GURGAON. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28363 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95560&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The loss arising in the process of conversion of foreign currency, which is part of trading asset of the assessee, is a trading loss as any other loss.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-I (1), CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. KUNNAM GRANITE WORKS
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28362 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95567&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessee does not pertain to the year under consideration, therefore assessing officer was not justified in making the addition under Section 68 of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. MAHALUXMI MARKETING PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28361 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86539&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid.
RATAN KUMAR BANSAL HUF VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE, UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28360 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86540&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When a donor trust which is a charitable trust donates its income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have been met by such donor trust and the donor trust can be said to have applied its income for religious and charitable purposes.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) , KOLKATA VERSUS NAWAL KISHORE KEJRIWAL CHARITY TRUST, ALKING CHARITY TRUST, ALWAR CHARITY TRUST, ASHOK KUMAR MEMORIAL TRUST, LAKSHMI TRUST
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28359 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86544&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Non filing of return for proper period and not in appropriate status is not at all a procedural mistake, it is quite substantial mistake.
Achal Housing LLP Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28358 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As tax was deducted at source, the payments were genuine and the source of the expenditure was also satisfactorily explained by the assessee.
M/s. Agrawal Construction Co. Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28357 (ITAT-INDORE)
-
As per the settled position of law, it was not permissible for an assessee to raise a fresh claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return of income.
Shri Raja Vikram Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28356 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · Section 54B
-
There was no liability to deduct tax at source since no income was chargeable to the recipient.
Viacom 18 Media Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28355 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Depreciation claimed by the Assessee on goodwill acquired deserves to be allowed.
M/s. Altimetrik India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28354 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Difference in the ready reckoner rate and the sale consideration was within the 5% tolerance band and hence needs to be ignored.
Spenta Enterprises Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28353 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43CA
-
Each AY is separate and, therefore, judgment adjudicated in one AY on the basis of substance before them cannot be regarded as binding in the assessment of subsequent years.
Bentley Nevada Inc. Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28352 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The reasons for proposed re-opening clearly indicates that Respondent No. 1 wants to re-open only on the basis of change of opinion which, as held time and again by various Courts, cannot be a ground for reopening.
Tata Sons Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28351 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The payment made by the assessee towards face value of the meal vouchers to the affiliates are not in the nature of payment made towards works contract so as to fall within the provision of section 194C, therefore demand raised under section 201(1) and 201(1A) are deleted.
SODEXO SVC INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28350 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95533&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are fully satisfied that the assessee discharged the onus upon him to prove the source of deposit in the joint bank account.
RAJENDRA SATGOUDA PATIL VERSUS ITO, 2 (3) SANGLI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28349 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95546&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For exercising power under section 154 of the Act, there should exist a mistake apparent from record.
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28348 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95550&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the garb of reassessment proceedings, the appellant cannot seek to verify the same details on the strength of material which was already available on record.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 3 VERSUS ISHWAR CHAND MITTAL
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28347 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86529&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Merely because a wrong claim was made by the assessee with regard to the expenses incurred for construction of a compound wall that by itself will not be a reason to impose penalty.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER’S CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28346 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86536&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.