-
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-KARNATKATA) · 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
-
By wrongly padding the accounts, Assessee may have violated other statutes but that by itself cannot be the reason to make additions under Section 68.
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28204 (HC-DELHI)
-
It is established fact that DCF Method is based on projected figures, on availability of the actual figures, if the future projections are not met, it cannot be said that the projections were wrong.
Credtalpha Alternative Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28203 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
There was no single test or criteria to decide whether a receipt is capital or business receipt and it is a fact-dependent issue.
Khevana Securities and Finstock Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28202 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Once learned PCIT held that the assessing officer has failed to enquire into the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), he should have left the issue at that and no further.
RUPA SAMIR MEHTA VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE-19, MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28201 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95104&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Neither the assessee furnished the working of disallowances under section 14A, nor the lower authority made the disallowance as per the formula prescribed under Rule 8D, therefore, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.
SMT. KRISHNABEN GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3) (3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28200 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95105&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No infirmity in the impugned order of the AO, more so, in view of the reasoning given in the remand report submitted by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A).
ACIT, CIR. 5 AHMEDABAD. VERSUS M/S. NEESA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28199 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95106&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer invoking Section 154(2) to rectify the assessment order is wholly untenable for the reason that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record to invoke the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4 (1) (2) BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. MPHASIS SOFTWARE & SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28198 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86378&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The usage of expression in the reasons 'there has been escapement of income by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts' is clearly made as an attempt to take the case out of the restrictions imposed by proviso to Section 147 of the Act.
TECHENGG PROJECT SERVICES AND EQUIPMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. MAHANDER SINGH CHAUHAN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28197 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86381&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no withdrawal by the partners from capital accounts and therefore there cannot be any income liable to tax in their hands.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. ORCHID GRIHA NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28196 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86383&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 68 to be inapplicable as it deals with any sum that is found credited in the books of the Assessee and not the shares received as gift.
Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28195 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 56(2)(viia), 68
-
Once the primary facts necessary for assessment were fully and truly disclosed and AO then proceeded to form a conclusive view, then reopening basis same material considering disallowance in subsequent AY was not permissible.
Oracle Financial Services Software Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of India Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28194 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
While beneficial circulars have to be applied retrospectively, oppressive circulars would have prospective application.
Goldline Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Vs The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28193 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 37(1)
-
Assessing Officer is directed to allow set off of MAT credit inclusive of surcharge and education cess and recompute the tax payable by the assessee for the year under consideration.
PENINSULA FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28192 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95060&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
TPO is mandated by law to determine the ALP by following one of the methods prescribed u/s. 92C read with rule 10B. When No such exercises is carried out by the TPO, the determination at Nil of the ALP is held not sustainable.
PPG COATINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH PPG ASIAN PAINTS PVT. LTD.) VERSUS DCIT-9 (2) MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28191 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95062&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provisions of section 263 gives power to the revisionary authority to revise the order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such enquiries as he deems necessary.
HUMUZA CONSULTANTS VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-19, MUMBAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28190 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95067&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.