ITAT Pune held that Association of Person (AOP) taxable at Normal Rates instead of Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) as provisions of section 167B of the Income Tax Act are not applicable. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Pune held that entire amount of R&D expense in India is eligible for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) and R&D capital expense outside India is eligible for deduction u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of Unit manufacturing homogenized and pasteurized milk and manufacturing of milk products like Ghee Butter, milk powder and other milk products.
The entire procedure subsequent to obtaining further information, documents or evidence has not been gone through in case of the Petitioner, and straightaway, the impugned assessment has been finalized.
Petitioner in response had made a representation informing the respondent-BDA that, what was offered to him was a full completed apartment and there was no pre-construction agreement between the petitioner and respondent-BDA.
Delhi High Court held that adjustment of refund against outstanding demand not justified on account of an order interdicting coercive action for recovery of dues. Accordingly, petition is allowed and refund amount is directed to be paid.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition made on the basis of dumb documents, loose paper containing scribbling, rough/vague noting’s in the absence of any corroborative material is not tenable in law. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that re-opening of assessment u/s. 147 must be based on some tangible material without such tangible material, re-opening is merely inspired from change of opinion and hence the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 and effective only from 01.04.2017. Thus, provisions of section 56(2)(x) is not applicable when flat is brought prior to 01.04.2017.
The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue notice, as the 1st respondent is not the Assessing Officer. The petitioner objected on 28.03.2016, but the 2nd respondent directed compliance by 25.07.2016, threatening the imposition of penalty.
