-
No penalty can be levied if there is reasonable cause for delay in filing ITR by an educational trust.
A.N. School Shiksha Samit Vs J.C.I.T.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28083 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
The Finance Act, 2012 amendment enlarging scope of Sec 55A(a) on DVO reference is not retrospective in nature.
Nanubhai G. Ahir Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28082 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 55A(a)
-
To gather more information and then prove the claim of the assessee wrong is not the object of section.
Trividh Corporation Vs The PCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28081 (ITAT-SURAT)
-
Project cost will include the expenditure incurred towards the parking space and hence such expenditure is allowable u/s 37.
Crown International Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28080 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37
-
Payment of entire tax including surcharge and cess is eligible for MAT credit u/s 115JAA(2A).
Sayaji Industries Ltd Vs The Dy. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28079 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 115JAA(2A)
-
If no mala fide can be attributed to the delay, the delay will be condonable.
Dev Bhoomi Vs Asst. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28078 (ITAT-DEHRADUN) · Section 145(3)
-
Surcharge is enhancement of sales tax and when the sales tax tax levied under the KGST Act is allowed, there is no reason not to allow deduction of surcharge on sales Tax.
Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28077 (SC) · Section 40(a)(iib)
-
AO has no jurisdiction to make addition in an unabated assessment year without there being incriminating materials and accordingly the jurisdiction of the AO can not be justified.
DCIT, CC-7 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DR. D.Y. PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY, MUMBAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28076 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94801&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing officer has not found any incriminating material during search, he cannot make any addition in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act, therefore, penalty cannot be levied in this case.
MR. VIKRAM BODHRAJ TANNA, M/S CAPSULATION SERVICES LTD. VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, MUMBAI, DCIT CC 3 (2) , CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28075 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94802&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act could be invoked in the present case.
DCIT (CC) 7 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD., (SUCCESSOR TO M/S. BELLISSIMO CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28074 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94803&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the society is not registered u/s 12A/12AA of the Act, in our considered view, the AO/CPC has right in making the addition treating the corpus fund receipts/donations as income.
BHAGAWAN SREE MAHAYOGI LAKSHMAMMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, ADONI. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2, KURNOOL
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28073 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94813&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment.
SHRI VASANTLAL NYALCHAND KIKAVAT (THROUGH L/H SHRI PANKAJ V. KIKAVAT) VERSUS DCIT-CC 3 (4) , MUMBAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28072 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94818&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is substance in the claim of the assessee 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 VERSUS ITO WARD- 1 (4) GURGAON
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28071 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94822&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Nowhere in the statute it has been provided that the PAN address will determine the territorial jurisdiction of the AO, the territorial jurisdiction is decided by the CBDT in terms of Section 120.
UV Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28070 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Amendment to section 50C for acceptable threshold is curative in nature, and therefore applicable retrospectively.
Banwari Lal Sharma Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28066 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Sections 292B, 50C
-
In case any part of forfeited amount is received, it shall be taxable in year of receipt.
Amarjeet Kaur Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28065 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The CIT(A), without considering assessee’s submissions, erred in making enhancement in the hands of the assessee.
Arysta LifeScience India Limited Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28064 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Advances lost during the course of business would be business losses and hence, an allowable deduction.
Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs DCIT- CC-7 (1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28063 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since Assessee duly explained the source of deposit, it is for the AO to bring on record some cogent evidence to prove the amount deposited in the bank was undisclosed income arising from the business or from any other activities.
Uma Agrawal Vs I.T.O –1( 3)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28062 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 69A
-
Danish Tax Council: The employee of the Questioner-Company compelled to work in Denmark due to COVID-19 did not constitute a permanent establishment of the Questioner-Company in Denmark under Danish-English DTAA.
H1 Vs Foreign Court Denmark
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28061 (FOREIGN)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.