ITAT Chennai held that capital gain exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act includes investment in purchase or construction of one or more than one residential house
G-Trans Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). In his opinion of Ld. CIT(A) this is an incurable defect. Ld. CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is […]
DCIT Vs Manish Vijay Mehta (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, in this case, the assessee is a nonresident from A.Y. 2001-02 and has been working as an employee in Belgium. He is having the income of interest on fixed deposits in India and is filing the return of income since A.Y. 2003-04 showing residential status as non-resident. […]
The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) has published its audit quality inspection guidelines as a step towards further improving the quality of audit profession. The inspection guidelines are on the lines of the best practices followed by International Audit Regulators. In fact, Audit quality inspections are integral to the functioning of independent audit regulators, world-wide. […]
HC ruled that date of filing of application by assessee on common portal would be treated as date of filing of claim for refund to satisfaction of requirement of Section 54 of CGST Act and Rule 89 of CGST Rules.
Time City Real Estates (India) Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Lucknow) In the present case, ITAT noted that the Assessing Officer had carried out sufficient enquiries and this is not even a case of lack of enquiry. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. has held that for assumption of jurisdiction […]
Madras High Court held that an application seeking compassionate appointment lapsed several years from the death of the deceased employee is not allowable
Jharkhand High Court held that once registration has been granted under section 12AA after satisfying about genuineness of the activities of the Trust, the same cannot be cancelled on the basis of the same set of provisions of the Trust.
ITAT Cuttack held that scientific method of calculation is done and the pay revision is approved, hence the provision for the pay revision is an unascertained liability nor the liability does not crystalise.
ITAT Bangalore held that AO cannot go beyond the profits as per profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act except in the manner provided in Explanation 1 to section 115JB. therefore the action of the AO to make the adjustment for the disallowance u/s. 14A to the book profits u/s. 115JB is not tenable.
