-
No disallowance was called for on telephone expenses and the assessee is entitled to said deduction U/s 37(1) of the Act, accordingly, we direct to delete the same.
MAHARANI OF INDIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-53 (1) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28305 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95356&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the assessee has filed regular return for impugned assessment year within extended due date prescribed u/s.139(4) of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy penalty u/s.271AAB of the Act.
M/S. POPULAR FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (4) , CHENNAI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28304 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95364&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Transfer of shares was done prior to the amalgamation which was found not to be an afterthought as contented by the Revenue and thus, taxable in the hands of ITI (Old).
The Investment Trust of India Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28303 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
The notice issued by the AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of Sec.271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated.
Sucon India Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28302 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
In the draft assessment order no variation in the Assessee's income was proposed and thus, assessment should have been passed as per Sec. 153 r.w. 143(3).
Silver Bella Holdings Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28301 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 144C(1)
-
The tax authorities cannot evade the responsibility of ensuring correct collection of due taxes without burdening the taxpayer with unfair additions for lack of proper legal advice..
Naresh Sharma Vs The AO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28300 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
Sec. 35D provides amortization of certain capital / preliminary expenditure incurred by the Assessee. Therefore, ROC expenditure u/s 35D is allowed.
Ocimum Bio Solutions India Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28299 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 35D
-
This is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1).
Konkan Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28298 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Any expenditure incurred on account of training and imparting higher education in abroad or even inside the country are treated to be business expenditure provided after completion of their study they have contributed to the business activities of the assessee company irrespective of the fact whether the company has continued business activities or earned profit.
J.D. Jones & Company Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28297 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Where all the evidence had been produced and the CIT(A), after full investigation of the evidence and examination of the accounts, had given a definite finding on the question in issue, the Tribunal's order of remand is held to be invalid.
Ratanchand Manoharmal Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28296 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The Petitioner sent a reply before expiry of deadline, therefore revenue is directed to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the petitioner on March 15, 2021.
Antony Alphonse Kevin Alphonse Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28295 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Since there is no possibility of disclosure of full and true income, regular assessment would be a proper method and settlement cannot be made.
Akash Fertility Centre and Hospital Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28294 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act have no application to the facts of the case, there is no necessity to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the assessee.
SHRI JITENDRA KAPILDEO GUPTA, M/S. SUBU CHEM PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 6, PUNE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28293 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95329&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee cannot be denied the deduction in the value of closing stock on account of non-moving/unsaleable items.
SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD, ACIT (OSD) , CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD, DCIT-4 (1) (1) , (ERSTWHILE DCIT, CIRCLE-8) , AHMEDABAD
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28292 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95336&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Capital asset transferred by the charitable trust and utilized for acquiring another capital asset would alone cannot be the criteria for granting exemption under Section 11(1A).
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. ST. JOSEPH’S MONASTERY
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28291 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86446&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
When the Appellate Tribunal has factually recorded the finding that there was no suppression of facts and the assessee has originally disclosed the receipt of the sale property, merely claimed deduction it cannot be said that there was wilful evasion of Tax.
SHRI. H. AMEERDEEN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 3 (1), CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28290 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86449&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The genuineness of the activities of the Trust is not a matter to be looked into at the time of dealing with the issue of registration of the Trust u/s 12AA.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28289 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86450&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As long as there is no deliberate Act or willful act on the part of the accused to evade the payment of tax, mere failure to pay the tax will not constitute the offence under Section 276C(2).
S.P. VELAYUTHAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRLCE – 14 (1) , CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28288 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86451&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deduction under section 54F of the Act can be claimed to the extent of amount of capital gain utilized till the filing of the return under Section 139(4) of the Act.
SMT. CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35 (2)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28287 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95303&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once learned PCIT has no administrative power under Section 263(1) of the Act to revise the order of the TPO, he cannot revise the assessment order passed thereafter in compliance to the provision contained under Section 92CA(4).
M/S JCB INDIA LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-13 (2) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28286 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95305&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.