Gujarat High Court held that factum of non-use and even handing over of tenancy and later resumption of possession was never in knowledge of Corporation. Further, valuation was undisputedly changed. Accordingly, the rate which was applicable at the relevant point of time is applied by the Corporation.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the shortage ascertained during the course of stock-taking are on the basis of assumption and presumption. Accordingly, duty demand on account of shortage of finished goods unsustainable.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
The ITAT Bangalore has directed the re-adjudication of the case of Satish Panduranga against the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the ground of non-reply to a notice issued during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Surat has dismissed the appeal of Adarsh Sahakari Ghar Bandhnari Mandali Ltd, a co-operative housing society, confirming that expenses incurred on internet subscriptions are not eligible for deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal ruled that there was no nexus between the expenses and the interest income earned by the society.
Calcutta High Court has granted a stay on initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond 6 years in case of RPC Commercial LLP. Court found that jurisdiction of assessing officer to issue notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a)/(1)(b).
A comprehensive analysis of Udaan Hotels & Resorts vs Union of India case and its implications on disclosing assessment materials under Section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act.
Discover the grounds, types, and limitations of appeals under civil cases in India. Explore the provisions of Part VII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and learn who can file an appeal, the types of appeals available, and the general grounds for appeal.
ITAT Bangalore deleted the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Dhanasingh Nagamuthu vs. ITO. The tribunal found that the assessing officer had not given the assessee a proper opportunity to respond and establish reasons for non-compliance, as required under Section 274(1) of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore has directed the re-adjudication of the case between Centre for e-Governance and DCIT. The ITAT found that the assessing officer had disallowed the claim of accumulation of 85% of income under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act due to the lack of a specific purpose mentioned in Form 10.
