-
The diary does not pertain to the assessee and income does not belong to him in his individual capacity. Since it does not belong to him, it cannot be taxed in his hands.
SHRI OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA VERSUS ACIT, CC – 26, NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28471 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95794&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Considering agreement with RIC, we are of the considered opinion that RIC does not constitute DAPE of the assessee under the relevant article of the India - USA DTAA.
M/S ESM GROUP INC. VERSUS THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1 (2) (2) , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28470 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95800&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no infirmity in the order of The ld CIT (A) in holding that payment by assessee to a foreign company for utilization of transponder centered on a satellite is not in the nature of Royalty in terms of various Article of above Three DTAAs.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL. TAXATION) , 4 (3) (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S VIACOM 18 MEDIA PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28469 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95806&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Inspection and examination of the goods before shipment is a common practice and it cannot be treated as a technical and managerial service.
Maharashtra Seamless Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28468 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Since Section 144C did not apply to the impugned years, the time limit for passing assessment order did not extend by application of Section 144C.
Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs The JCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28467 (ITAT-SURAT) · Sections 153, 144C
-
Mere fact of the impugned addition having been made on protective basis would hardly provide any relief to the assessee in light of the overwhelming factual possession supporting the Revenue’s case.
Nancy Divakar Hospital & Research Centre Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28466 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Section 139 cannot mean only section 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of section 139.
Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Shaikh Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28465 (ITAT-SURAT)
-
Project for which permission was subsequently granted was different from the one for which IOD was obtained earlier, therefore no substantial question of law arose in the case.
Abode Builders Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28464 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 80-IB(10)
-
If the CBDT circular is not read-down as to remove the rigors of the cut off date by holding that the same is not sacrosanct the same may suffer from vice of arbitrariness.
Rakesh Garg Vs Principal Comissioner Of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28463 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
Revenue is directed to decide the rectification application filed by Assessee under Section 154 in accordance with law by way of a reasoned order within six weeks and in the event of a refund, grant the same within the said period with interest.
Nokia India Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(1), & ORS
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28462 (HC-DELHI)
-
Mere application of whole or some part of the income from the construction business for charitable purposes would not render the business itself being considered as incidental to the attainment of the objects.
Zilla Nirmiti Kendra Vs ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28461 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 11
-
The consideration received by the assessee on sale of transferable development rights not chargeable to tax under the head capital gain in view of the fact that there is no cost of acquisition.
Kirit Raojibhai Patel Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is nothing on record to rebut the correctness of cash deposited in the bank account held with HDFC bank, the addition sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) cannot be confirmed.
Naresh Sharma Vs Income-tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28459 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 69C
-
No adjustment to ALP is required to be made in the instant case in respect of import of finished goods in either case. Accordingly, the adjustment made is hereby directed to be deleted.
M/S KELLOGG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15 (2) (1) MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28458 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The existence of belief has to be bonafide and has to be based on material which is relevant hence specific in nature. The basis of the belief should be discernable from the facts on record and ascertainable with regard to the escapement of income.
ACIT, CIRCLE, ROHTAK VERSUS SMT. RAVI PARKASH AGGARWAL AND VICE-VERSA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28457 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95770&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Service of notice in case of an assessee residing abroad, by affixing the same on the main door of his local residence in India is not a valid service.
BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (3) , BATHINDA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28456 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95772&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT has not extended the time-limit for passing any order under Section 144C(13) of the Act vide Notification No.74/2021 dated 25th June 2021, and hence, there is no extension of time-limit to 30th September 2021 to pass the order under Section 144C(13).
SHELL INDIA MARKETS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28454 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86641&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing officer could not have based his conclusion solely on the alleged admission of the director of the assessee during the survey operations
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA VERSUS D.K. BASAK JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28453 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86644&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CBDT by its order dt. Sep 28,2021, to avoid genuine hardship to assessees, authorised the admission of application for settlement filed after Jan 31, 2021 but before Sep 30, 2021 and treat such applications as valid and process them as pending application as per Section 245A(eb).
Pradeep Kumar Naredi Vs Union of India & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28452 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
The Assessing Officer was duty bound to provide all the documents called for by petitioner and his reluctance to provide these documents only would make the court draw adverse inference against respondent.
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28451 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.