CIT(A) held that as per Section 5 of the Act , if an individual is residing for more than 183 days in India he would be considered as Resident in India and his entire global income would be taxable in India. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the applicability of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act should only be examined during assessment and not at the registration stage under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, CIT(E) directed to evaluate the application afresh.
Madras High Court held that passing of ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being hearing is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as PCIT already decided the matter in favour of the assessee while invoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act. According, reassessment action quashed.
The respondent-Society had applied for registration pleading that it was running a private Industrial Training Institute imparting vocational to the students, and the same was duly affiliated and regulated by National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT).
Madras High Court held that two equal time additions towards purchase suppression is unwarranted. Thus, two equal time additions deleted, however, addition towards purchase suppression and penalty u/s. 16(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 sustained.
Guwahati High Court held that tender process for construction of Assam Type Sub-Centre Building under Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department work is not allocated in accordance with law and accordingly, directed to allocate balance of works to eligible bidders.
ITAT Raipur held that belated return of income filed by payee u/s. 139(4) satisfies the 1st proviso to section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act hence assessee cannot be treated as ‘assessee in default’.
ITAT Cuttack held that difference between the sales declared in the profit and loss account and as per the cash book entire added by PCIT without providing sufficient opportunity to reconcile the same. Thus, AO directed to examine the issue.
ITAT Delhi held that even though assessee is not the owner of the Airport Metro Express Line Project it has right to collect fare from commercial operations. Thus, depreciation is eligible on such intangible assets as per provisions of section 32(1)(ii).
