-
Revenue by taking aforementioned view, in fact admitted that the undisclosed income was sourced out of the business activities of the Assessee.
Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30630 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · Section 69
-
The payment of VAT by the Assessee would not attract the provisions of Section 40(a)(iib) since it is neither in the nature of licence fee or surcharge.
Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30629 (ITAT-RAIPUR) · Section 40(a)(iib)
-
Revenue is directed to make every possible endeavor of carrying out the necessary correction in the challan within 2 months.
WorldQuant Research (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30628 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The Revenue, prior to passing of Section 148A(d) order realised that mistake was committed while issuing show cause notice under Section 148A(b), yet it proceeded with the same and even went to the extent of wrong statement in Section 148A(d) order.
Usha Rani Girdhar Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30627 (HC-DELHI) · Section 148A(d)
-
The expenditure on donation made to sister concern/trust out of the unsecured loan taken from a private company is not prohibited under Section 13.
BHAI Hospital Trust Vs ITO (E)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30626 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11
-
The time that was made available to the petitioner to file its response to the show cause notice was quite inadequate and illusory and therefore, the principles of natural justice can be said to have been violated.
CS & Sons Vs The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30625 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 144B
-
Substantial justice cannot be defeated by technical considerations of delay, where there is no deliberate delay or delay on account of negligence or on account of malafide.
Bhatewara Associates Manik Vs Union of India
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30624 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The Education cess paid by the respondent-assessee would not be allowed as an expenditure under Section 37 read with 40 (a) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Limited Vs JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30623 (SC) · Section 40(a)(ii)
-
In the absence of any specific withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 154, the proceedings can be said to pending, thus, it was not permissible on the part of the Revenue to initiate the reassessment proceedings.
S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30605 (SC)
-
Considering the confidential information furnished by Revenue as well as past cases, the DBS Bank FD would protect Revenue’s interest for now.
FCS Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30598 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
ITAT would not be able to take a contrary view in the appeal preferred by the Assessee, having already expressed an opinion in the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
Linklaters Vs The Deputy Director of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30569 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Mistake of not disclosing details of registration under Section 12A in the return of income, falls within the ambit of mistake apparent from the record as envisaged under Section 154 and can be corrected without revising the return.
Grih Kalyan Kendra Board Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30568 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 12A
-
Assessee’s intention to conceal income is further proved by the fact that the PAN of PoA holder was only given for TDS purposes as if he was the only recipient of the sale consideration.
Dr. Sabesan Parameswaran Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30561 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Set off of brought forward loss when there is a change in shareholding is a debatable issue and not a mistake apparent from record, thus not rectifiable.
Birla Edutech Limited Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30560 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The assessee would be entitled for set off of brought forward as well as current year business losses against foreign dividend income.
Tata Industries Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30553 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80G
-
Additional evidence cannot be admitted without calling for a remand report or comments from the Revenue in accordance with Rule 46A.
Ascend Telcom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30552 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
The phrase 'increase in income’ inserted vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. Apr 1, 2021 is not applicable in the present case.
Cemetile Industries Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30551 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 143(1)
-
Supreme Court has recognized ICAI as an expert body of accountants and the guidance note on tax audit issued by them can be relied upon in the absence of any statutory provision for computation of turnover in such cases.
Sanjay Marotrao Modak Vs Dy. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30550 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271B
-
Interest income earned by the co-operative society from the investments made with the co-operative banks is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30549 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80P
-
Formidable evidence have been placed on record to prove the identity of contractors and in absence of any culpable evidence in possession to prove contrary, Revenue cannot make addition.
United Foods Private Limited Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30548 (ITAT-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.