-
For the purpose of 271AAB of the Act, this amount from SA/1 cannot be termed as undisclosed income as per the definition given under Section 271AAB of the Act (supra) and therefore penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act cannot be levied in this case.
LATE CHIRANJILAL AGARWAL (LEGAL HEIR SAMEER AGARWAL) VERSUS ACIT CC-2 (1) KOLKATA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28050 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Balance sheet drawn up as on 31/03/2013 was rightly taken by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) for the determination of the FMV of the shares sold by the assessee.
CHAMUNDI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-36 KOLKATA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28049 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94769&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is not justified and is directed to be deleted.
CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (2) , NAGPUR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28048 (ITAT-NAGPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94770&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Second Ld. Pr. CIT without satisfying the condition precedent u/s 263 of the Act has invoked the revisional jurisdiction, so all his actions are ab initio void.
STARPOINT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOLKATA-4, KOLKATA.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28047 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94771&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penalty in the case of assessee cannot be sustained as the assessee was not a person who was subjected to search u/s. 132 of the Act and consequently the provisions of section 271AAB could not be invoked in his case.
SHRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2) , BENGALURU. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28046 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94775&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision of section 69C cannot be attracted in this case, unless revenue brings on record any proof of expenditure incurred.
M/S TYLAN ORGANICS PVT LTD C/O KALYANIWALLA AND MISTRY LLP VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1 (3) (1) , MUMBAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28045 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94779&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was no deliberate act on part of the assessee to conceal/furnish inaccurate particulars of income.
MS VARSHA JITENDRA TEKWANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (4) VADODARA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28044 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94745&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO is directed to allow expenditure claimed in the profit & loss account.
DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE 7 (1), DELHI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28043 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94749&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once resolution plan is approved a new claim cannot be raised by the revenue.
Murli Industries Limited Vs Asistant Commisioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28042 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
An undertaking, being the unit, which had already availed, before the commencement of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the deductions referred to in section 10A for ten consecutive years, such unit shall not be eligible for deduction from income under this section.
M/S. CLASSIC LINENS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OSD, COMPANY RANGE-I, CHENNAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28041 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94731&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition made by the A.O is being deleted.
SHRI ATHAVULLAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VELLORE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28040 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94732&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The property though purchased from four Vendors remains as a single property. Being so, the property has to be considered as a single property and deduction u/s. 54F should be granted.
NEELAVARA SANJEEVA RAO VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (2) (1) , BANGALORE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28039 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94734&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any reason to interfere or to deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same.
A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (2) NAGPUR VERSUS M/S KARAN KOTHARI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28038 (ITAT-NAGPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94738&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The provisions of section 68 of the Act are not applicable in respect of addition in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
M/S. JAGATI PUBLICATIONS LIMITED VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE 2 (1) HYDERABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28037 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94740&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and find the grounds of appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merits.
ITO, WARD-51 (3) , NEW DELHI VERSUS RAKESH RELAN, PROPRIETOR OF HB RELAN & CO.,
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28036 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94743&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
SCEO Bangalore: Mens rea is not a prerequisite for invocation of Section 276B.
Panacea Hospital Pvt Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28035 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 276B
-
Compensation to slum dwellers under consensus-based Court order will be an allowable expenditure and not a contingent liability.
Salient Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28034 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The bonus paid to the employees and the key management personnel was in the ordinary course of business and squarely allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Act.
IDFC Capital Ltd Vs DCIT-14(2)(1)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28033 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37(1)
-
Assessee had proper reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act.
DCIT. CENT. CIR-7 (3), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SANATHNAGAR ENTERPRISES LTD., M/S. AJITNATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD., M/S. LODHA GLOWING CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., M/S. LODHA PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28032 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94706&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue erred in apportioning 10% to gross receipts as taxable income since Section 44BB do not override the provisions of Sections 4 and 5.
Petronash FZE Vs ADIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 28026 (ITAT-DEHRADUN) · Section 44BB
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.