-
It is a settled position that unless and until the trust is registered under section 12A, it cannot claim the benefit of section 11 of the Act and thus, registration under section 12A is a condition precedent.
BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST MOTI MAHAL VERSUS CIT (E) JAIPUR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26898 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90715&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Undisputedly, the expenditure is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The concept of deferred revenue expenditure is not there in I.T.Act.
DCIT-6 (1) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS AXIS ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26897 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90718&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Order of the learned CIT – A does not have any legs to stand. None of the judicial precedents cited before the learned CIT – A applies to the facts of the case.
DCIT, CIRCLE : 10 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE : 10 (1) , NEW DELHI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26896 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90720&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The ld. PCIT validly assumed his jurisdiction for exercising his power under section 263 of the Act by taking view that the order passed by assessing officer is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of justice.
KANUBHAI VANMALIBHAI PATEL HUF VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26895 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90687&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Intimation u/s. 143(1) cannot be treated as an order of assessment and there being no assessment u/s. 143(3), there is no question of change of opinion on the issue dealt by the AO for reopening the assessment.
SMT. KAVITHA KAMLESH SHAH VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6 (1), BENGALURU.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26894 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90691&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Holding M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd as a penny stock company by the authorities below without any corroborative evidence is uncalled for and unjustified. Such action is erroneous arbitrary whimsical and suffers from the principle of surmise and conjecture.
RADHEYSHYAM KHANDELWAL, SURESH KHANDELWAL, RUKMANI KHANDELWAL, SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL VERSUS ACIT-4 (1) , INDORE AND MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL VERSUS ITO-4 (1) , INDORE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26893 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90692&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
If assessee has interest free funds which far exceed the advance given, then there cannot be any presumption that such advance has been given only out of such interest bearing funds.
NARESH KUMAR C/O ANKIT GUPTA VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26892 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90697&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In absence of any contrary material brought to notice of this tribunal, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is upheld.
BRIJ RESOURCES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-5 (2)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26891 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90698&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Advances given by the lender was not for the individual benefit of the shareholder but for business purposes and therefore such transactions would not fall within the sweep of deeming fiction created under s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD VERSUS M/S. KRISHNA COIL CUTTERS PVT. LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26883 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90647&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since Assessee has explained a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notices issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.
MOHIT ANAND VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-1 (3), UTTAR PRADESH
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26882 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90648&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the income of the assessee is estimated by G.P rate no further addition can be made on account of expenditure which is part of the trading account.
SMT. UMA KESARWANI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (5) ALLAHABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26881 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90650&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioners are having reasonable cause for such failure for payment of the TDS amount and therefore, the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the issue afresh.
M/S. KAJAH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAJI A. ABDUL RAHIMAN SAHIB, HAJI ABDUL SALAM, HAJI A. ABDUL RASHEED, HAJI A. ABDU AZEES, HAJI A. ABDUL RAWUF, 7. HAJI A. ABDUL RAFEEQ VERSUS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MADURAI.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26880 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85122&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO is not empowered to substitute the agreed consideration by Fair Market Value except in situations envisaged u/s 50C of the Act.
AMIT VISHNU PASHANKAR, VISHNU PUNDALIK PASHANKAR, MAHESH VISHNU PASHANKAR VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2, SANGLI., THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 3, PUNE.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26877 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90622&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioners are at liberty to issue suitable instructions to R2 in regard to their bank accounts.
S. PADMAPRIYA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2 (5) , CHENNAI., THE BRANCH MANAGER
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26876 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85104&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since section 3 of the DTVSV Act has become applicable, therefore the amount payable by the Petitioner will be equivalent to 50% of the disputed tax.
COOPERATIVE RABOBANK UA, VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , MUMBAI AND UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26875 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85107&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The reason of the learned Single Judge bringing the case under the second proviso is perfectly in order. Therefore, the order made by learned Single Judge is upheld
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) , CHENNAI VERSUS HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILM WORKERS' WELFARE CENTRE (CITU) , THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILM MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26874 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85110&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Being govt. employee, the assessee is not permitted to enter in chit fund.
KISHAN KOTHWAL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26871 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90574&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the CBDT Circular No. 1/2005 was in the context of section 10B, the ratio of the circular equally applies to Section 10A.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) VERSUS ZENTEST LABS
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26870 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90575&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since the stamp duty valuation is less than the sale consideration under the sale deed and hence no addition u/s 50C is required to be made as per proviso to Section 50C of the Act.
DHARMENDRA B. PATEL VERSUS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (3) , SURAT.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26869 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The addition made by revenue authorities in the given case is without any basis and keeping aside the sound principles of tax jurisprudence, the same cannot be held as sustainable.
SRI BUDHUVIR EDUCATIONAL TRUST VERSUS DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, DIST-SUNDARGARH
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26868 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=90579&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.