-
Rule 128(9) provides that the statement in Form No. 67 and shall be furnished on or before the due date specified for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1).
Sonakshi Sinha Vs Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30128 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Revenue is directed to decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in the present order except the issue of limitation.
Salil Gulati Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30127 (HC-DELHI)
-
The assessment of long term capital gains pertaining to receipts for compulsory acquisition of land under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, should have been done in exact proportion of the land belonging to each of the co-owner and remits the matter back to the file of Revenue for fresh adjudication.
E. Murugan Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30126 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Any ambiguity in a taxing statute should enure to the benefit of the Assessee, however, any ambiguity in the exemption clause must be conferred in favour of Revenue.
Karnataka Grameena Bank Vs Assistants Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30125 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 234E
-
Assessee to be eligible to the benefits of indexation on entire cost of acquisition from the date of allotment of flats despite the fact that the payment was made in instalments subsequent to the date of allotment.
Nitin Parkash Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30124 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Payment made by Cadila Healthcare to a Mexico-based entity for clinical trials is in the nature of FTS, liable for tax deduction at source since the payments are not covered under the exception to Section 9(1)(vii)(b) and there is no ‘make available’ clause in India-Mexico DTAA.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30117 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
Revenue is bound to apply value of goods declared for central excise purpose, because central excise authorities are competent to determine value of product for the purpose of duty levy.
Kamivisa Products Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30116 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Since the impugned addition made towards the unaccounted sales and disallowance u/s.10B is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search, the additions are liable to be deleted.
M G Anand Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30111 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 132A
-
Premium on redemption of debentures is taxable in the year of redemption and hence there was no exempt income whatsoever warranting invocation of the provisions of Section 14A.
Enzen Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30110 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The Revenue wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 144C.
Super Brands Ltd [UK] Vs The A.D.I.T
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30107 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 144c
-
Software will be written in binary code and it is intangible and can be used only when loaded onto a compatible hardware, thus hardware becomes an integral part of the exported commodity.
Subex Limited Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30106 (HC-KARNATAKA)
-
The imposition of the conditions on FD takes into account the eventuality of the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 276C(1)(i) read with Section 278B(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Xiongwei Li Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) UNIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30105 (HC-DELHI)
-
Exceptional losses incurred by the Assessee amounting to Rs.95.69 Cr on account of certain trades of referred clients cannot be allowed as deduction.
Aditya Birla Money Mart Limited Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30099 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The numerical strength of the Judges taking a particular view is not relevant, but the Bench strength is determinative of the binding nature of the Judgment.
Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd Vs GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30093 (SC)
-
No liability under Section 194C can be fastened on Assessee providing transport aggregator platform Ola, acting as a mere intermediary, in respect of payments made to the Drivers, relies on Mumbai ITAT ruling in Uber India.
ANI Technologies Private Limited Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30092 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · Section 194C
-
Services which are ancillary and essentially linked to the purchase of equipment and cannot be provided on stand alone basis would fall outside the purview of fee of included services under India-US DTAA, thus, liability to deduct tax at source shall not arise.
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30085 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
-
Order passed by Revenue under Section 154 against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) is within the period of limitation of 4 years.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30084 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
There is no question of any capital gain as all assets and liabilities were transferred at book value and the question of determination of capital gains does not arise.
Univercell Telecommunications India-Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30083 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
-
Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No. 67.
Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi Vs CIT(A) NFAC
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30082 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
The asset is in the nature of stock-in-trade and the income arising from the sale of asset is taxable as business income in the hands of the Assessee.
Bharat Promoters Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30081 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.