-
The Revenue was justified in disallowing Assessee’s claim of interest on loan for construction.
Netra Software Technologies P Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28697 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 24
-
Revenue is directed to decide the appeals filed by the assessee which are already uploaded on the Income Tax Portal, would be decided at the earliest, preferably within 1 year.
Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner of Income Tax & others
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28693 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
-
No addition under section 50C can be made in absence of any evidence.
Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta (HUF) Vs ITO Ward -1(3)(6)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28692 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 50C
-
HC; The mere fact that no return has been filed setting out a value for the property in question, would not be material.
T. S. Hajee Moosa & Co. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-8
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28691 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to section 263 does not authorize or give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made.
Shantai Exim Limited Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28690 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 263
-
The jurisdictional notice in the present case having been issued in the correct name, merely because the assessment order did not mention the subsequently changed name, is not fatal.
Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28689 (HC-DELHI)
-
Domestic law cannot be read into treaties, unless treaties are amended bilaterally.
B.T. Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. C.I.T
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28688 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Simply because the Assessee chose to compute the tax payable on its income under Section 44BBB, on a bonafide belief or misconception that it did not have PE in India, that itself could not entail imposition of penalty.
Lahmeyer Holding GambH Vs DDIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28687 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In order to eligible for benefit of investment allowance u/s.32AC(1) of the Act, the assessee must satisfy two conditions as per which new asset should be acquired and installed between 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2015. Unless the assessee satisfies two conditions, it cannot claim benefit of additional investment allowance.
Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28686 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 32AC
-
The payments are not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, therefore the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is being deleted.
Taj TV Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28679 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
If Revenue is aggrieved by the final judgment of the High Court, all the questions are kept open to be agitated before this Court including on the grounds which are raised in the Special Leave Petition.
Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28678 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
When the Assessee makes a request for personal hearing under the faceless scheme, the same must be provided.
Greenvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME-TAX OFFICER/NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28677 (HC-KARNATKATA)
-
Since the loan amount has been held by us as genuine, the corresponding interest payment made thereon after subjecting the same to TDS compliances, deserves to be allowed.
Agripure Tradeware Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28672 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 68, 133(6)
-
Income of Rs. 79 lacs shown in return of income is just to misguide and pre-empt the information available to the Department in the form of Form 26AS to evade the tax.
Virendra Pratap Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28671 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The amended provisions of Sec. 2(14)(iii)(a) is applicable prospectively w.e.f AY 2014-15 which is not the subject AY.
Mangavalli Grandhi Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28670 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 2(14)(iii)(b)
-
There is no substitute for issuance of notice u/s 148 to the correct address of the assessee in time and that the impugned communication asking assessee to come for the hearing is liable to be interfered.
A. P. Suryaprakasam Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28669 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 148
-
Revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that findings of fact recorded by Ld. CIT(A) is incorrect or opposed to the facts.
Ramcharan Tej Konidala Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28668 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Assessee filed certain evidence which were earlier not available to the Assessee in view of the acrimonious legal proceedings, thus, if given one more opportunity, the Assessee will cooperate in expeditious disposal and submit all the required information.
Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28667 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Since assessee did not pay the tax within the period stipulated under Section 140A, the prosecution against him was maintainable.
S.P. Velayutham Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28666 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 276C(2)
-
It is pertinent to examine whether the Tax Consultant was instrumental in claiming fraudulent refund for the Assessee by indulging in malpractices and the penalty cannot be levied if the Tax Consultant is found solely responsible for fraudulent act coupled with the fact that Assessee’s claim is found bona fide.
Joison Kundu KulamJohny Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28665 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.