Relying on judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2014] 49 taxmann.com 15 (Gujarat) ITAT Ahemdabad held in the case of DCIT vs. Naroda Enviro Project Ltd. that the reopening of assessment solely on the ground of audit objection is not valid.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Ruchi Developers vs. ITO, where Assessee has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made,
In the case of M/s Kantilal Siyaram vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), the assessee has claimed that advance tax was paid, which was not recorded in the original return on the income which was remained to be disclosed in original return.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in case of ITO vs. M/s Tirupati Enterprises held that the revenue has to be recognized only at the time when substantial risk and reward are transferred to the buyer by the seller. Since the construction was incomplete, the property was not ready for sale.
In the case of ACIT vs. Smarneev Fashions Pvt. Ltd, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because there is a fall in gross profit or there is a NIL closing stock at the end of the year the books of accounts cannot be rejected.
The Ambassador of Ecuador to India, H.E. Mr. Mentor Villagomez met Ms. Rita Teotia, Commerce Secretary, Government of India on 9th October, 2015 and discussed measures to enhance bilateral trade and investment relations between both the countries. During the year 2014-15, the bilateral trade between the two countries stood at US $ 1290.77 million.
To win pending cases in tax laws. Indian Govt. has carried out retrospective amendment in tax laws from very inception of tax laws i.e. 1962. The retrospective amendment should be carried out when the cases are pending in Courts. When assessee takes advantages of loopholes in tax laws and win the cases in lower courts […]
Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. vs. CIT held that once the income has been assessed u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit it cannot be treated as business income because it is not an income classifiable under any heads of income as per Sec 14.
There have been some reports in the media yesterday and today that the Income tax Department has issued fresh demand notice to Nokia India. These reports are erroneous. An assessment order was passed in the case of Nokia India Pvt Ltd for Assessment Year 2010-11 in August 2015. The tax demand raised by this order was primarily based on issues arising from earlier orders.
Delhi High Court Held In the case of I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd vs CIT that AO cannot invoke Section 14A read with Rule 8D (2) without recording his satisfaction and noted that the recording of satisfaction as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was unreasonable
