-
The jurisdiction assumed by the Revenue for invoking the provisions of Section 147 is not valid.
Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28225 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10AA
-
Explanation 2 to last proviso under Section 10(23C) clarifies that income will be computed without any set off or deduction or allowance of any excess application of any of the year preceding to the previous year.
UTI Institute of Capital Markets Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28224 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(23C)
-
For exemption under Section 54F, the date of sale is the date of agreement to sell and not when the full and final consideration is received by the seller.
Niranjan Bhadang Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28223 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54F
-
When the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed, the Assessing Officer is not entitled on change of opinion to commence proceedings for re-assessment.
Bennett Property Holdings Company Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28222 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
50% estimate of profit in the instant case will meet the ends of justice and revenue is being directed to allow it.
Ketan Sureshchandra Shah Vs ITO- 25( 2)( 1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28221 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The casual use of the words like routine, arbitrary and whimsical having adverse legal consequences for the functioning of the adjudicating Authority like the First Appellate Authority is strongly deprecated.
Abdul Wahab Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28220 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Property being used for commercial purpose was factually reported by the inspector and there was no reason for the lower authorities to brush aside the inspector’s report.
Yash Suneja Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28219 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54F
-
There was substance in the Assessee’s claim of having received part/full sale consideration qua sale of the properties in question and the same had wrongly been rejected by the lower authorities.
Fakruddin Ali Ahmed Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28218 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
There is no violation of the provisions of Section 13 (1) (C) and Section 13 (2) of the Act and therefore, the exemption u/s 11 of the Act cannot be denied to the trust.
THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EX) -1 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS THE LOHAR CHAWL DAWOODI BOHRA MERCHANTS’ ASSOCIATION
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28217 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95158&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When all the explanations and documents from the assessee have been scrutinized and examined by the Assessing Officer in such scenario the order of the assessment cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
SHERGIL HARJIT VERSUS PR. CIT-1, PUNE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28216 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95160&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Proper resolution of the difficulties of assessees should be made at the level of the administration itself without the requirement of Court’s intervention.
TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, SHRI MANOJ GUPTA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THROUGH CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTER OF FINANCE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28215 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86408&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Re-opening of the assessment without any basis and merely change of opinion is not permissible while exercising the powers under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act.
BENNETT COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 (1), MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1 AND UNION OF INDIA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28214 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86409&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For income to be considered as disclosed income, the same should have been disclosed in the return filed by the assessee before the search or requisition
M/S. KELD ELLENTOFT INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III (3) , CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28213 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86412&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since reopening of the assessment being at the behest of the audit party, the reopening of the assessment is misconceived, incorrect and bad in law.
MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14 (2) (1) , MUMBAI & 2 ORS.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28212 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86413&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 143(1) prescribes that no adjustments to the income shall be made till the same is intimated to the assessee and 30 days time is given to the assessee to respond to the same.
TARAMANDAL CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS THE ACIT (CPC) , BANGALORE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28210 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95127&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report within time by the assessee. Therefore, imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act for belated filing the audit report is not correct.
SHRI T. MUNIAPPAN VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 TRICHY
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28209 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95128&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee-HUF in the present case complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under Section 54 of the Act.
SAROJ ARORA VERSUS ITO WARD- 59 (3) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28208 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95131&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The truck operators if not the truck owners, cannot be considered as the sub contractors for the purpose of Section 194C (2) of the Act.
SRI. SHIVAMURTHY VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28207 (HC-KARNATAKA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86387&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Undisclosed amount determined by the Assessing Officer has a direct nexus with the incriminating materials seized during the search.
M/S. PYRAMID FILMS INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28206 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86392&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal correctly made the order in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition made by CIT(A) under Section 68.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 3, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28205 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86395&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.