-
In the present case for assessment year 2005 - 06 there is no transfer of asset, and therefore, there is no chargeability of capital gain u/s 45 of the act.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK CRESCENZO VERSUS THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -2 (1) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28285 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95312&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even on merits the assessee’s claim for depreciation on spectrum fee is allowable under section 32 of the Act as the provisions contained under section 35ABB of the Act being not applicable to the issue at hand.
M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD.) VERSUS PCIT-CIRCLE (5) , MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28284 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95314&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There cannot be a penalty where there was bond fide error in the claim.
M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD., C/O. ANUJ MEHTA VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (3) , AHMEDABAD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28283 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95315&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the genuineness of the transaction is not free from doubt, it is implied that the creditworthiness of the parties was not satisfactory so as to advance the loan to the assessee.
DCIT CIRCLE-1 (1) (1), AHMEDABAD VERSUS J.P. FINCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. FINCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95316&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Assessee has already offered the rental income under the head house property. Therefore, assessee is allowed to claim all eligible deductions including interest on borrowed capital.
Hima Bindu Putta Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28281 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 24
-
The service of notice cannot be termed as valid and is non-compliant to the provisions of Sec. 282.
Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28280 (ITAT-INDORE) · Sections 143(2), 282
-
The Revenue is bound to grant personal hearing if the statute itself provides for the same.
Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28279 (HC-DELHI)
-
When statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the Revenue cannot veer away from the same.
Satia Industries Limited Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28278 (HC-DELHI)
-
Penalty not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) owing its corresponding deletion of addition in the quantum appeal.
Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28277 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The Assessee has provided the details of the parties to whom interest is paid including banks, non-banking finance companies and some private lenders at a rate ranging from 5% to 24% p.a, but CIT(A) failed to prove any related party transaction within the meaning of Sec. 40A.
Shri Bhavarlal Mangilal Jain Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28276 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
HUF is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 54B even prior to insertion of the words the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family by the Finance Act 2013.
Sitaram Pahariya (HUF) Vs I.T.O – Ward 6(3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28275 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 54B
-
Inappropriate words in the penalty notice were not struck off and the notice does not specify under which limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) was the penalty proceedings initiated. Therefore penalty is being deleted.
Deshpal Singh Kohli Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28274 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
-
Mere doubt cannot lead to revision of assessment order unless shown that AO failed to apply his mind, or that his view was wrong in facts or law.
Shivratan Shrigopal Mundada Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28273 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 54F
-
No details are filed about the type of business and prime facie it seems Assessee is offering business income on a presumptive basis, liable to be taxed u/s 44AF/44AD.
Chandra Sahu Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28272 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 69A
-
Period of four years would be reasonable period of time for initiation of proceeding under section 201.
Mphasis Ltd Vs DDIT (International Tax)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28271 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
A loan accepted as correct in principle, could not be treated as amount received since there is a pre-condition of its return to be made to the creditor party.
Hajeebu Venkata Seeta Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28270 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 56(2)(vi)
-
If the PCIT was of the opinion that the Revenue had not made requisite enquiries, then he should made the requisite enquiries and brought on record as to where the AO was wrong.
Concern India Foundation Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28269 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
When on consideration of material on record, one view is conclusively taken by the Revenue, it would not be open to it to reopen the assessment based on the very same material to take another view.
Lintas India Private Limited Vs Union of India and Anr
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28268 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 148
-
When all the documents and explanations from the Assessee have been scrutinized and examined by the AO, the assessment cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Shergil Harjit Vs Pr. CIT-1
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28267 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
Denial of deduction u/s 80P for sole reason of its being situated in Mumbai is not legally sustainable.
Walkeshwar Chandanbala Co Operative Housing Society Ltd Vs CPC, Ward -19( 3)( 1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28266 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.