Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
High court held In the case of The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. DCIT & CCIT that the CCIT is empowered and authorized to waive interest under section 234C only if the assessee case falls any of the two cases mentioned in notification dated 26/6/2006 for the income tax authorities
High court held In the case of The CIT vs. M/s Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd that the fundamental basis on which the assessment was re-opened itself is untenable. We are fully agree with the contention of the Tribunal that in the absence of any justifiable vitiating circumstances
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Goa in the case of CIT V/s M/s Sai Prasad Properties Limited that an application under section 245D(2C) of the Act has to be disposed of after considering the objections raised by CIT
In was held by High Court of Bombay and Goa in the case of M/s V M Salgaoncar Sale International V/s ACIT, that objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded U/s 148 of the Act can not be disposed off on an imaginary ground by the assessing Officer.
The hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Goa held in the case of Betts India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT that when all the material facts necessary for assessment has been truly and full disclosed, the assessment can not be re opened after the expiry of time limit
ACIT Vs. DJ Infrastructure Dev Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI) AO made additions on account of unexplained sources of expenses on the basis of some documents found during search proceedings u/s 132 on Gopal Zarda Group. On seized documents some details of expenses and payment of share premium is mentioned.
ITO Vs. Facor Power Ltd. (ITAT DELHI) AO made addition on account of interest earned on FDRs put in bank for procurement of capital asset by holding that no such capital assets is acquired by assessee during the year under consideration.
DDIT (Ex) Vs. Gideons International In India (ITAT HYDERABAD) The assessee in this case is a registered society who paid salary to its director along with some perks in addition to the basic salary. AO doubted that excessive salary has been paid to the director and he made addition of excessive salary than the salary mentioned in the appointment letter.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mckinsey Business Consultants Vs. DDIT held that if there is no clause in DTAA to tax fees for technical services (FTS) then the same is taxable as business profits provided the income is earned by assessee through a PE in India.
The ITAT Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Trade Apartment Ltd. held that the delay in filling appeal cannot be condoned if the same is attributable to gross negligence and inaction on the part of revenue.
