The assessment was completed by Ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determining total income at Rs.2,78,46,98,694/-. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the construction of Public Library would also form part of charitable function and any work done with the same purpose is eligible for granting exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CIT(A) relied upon fresh submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee, however, no opportunity was granted to AO to examine the fresh evidences. Accordingly, order set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that petitioner is duly entitled for interest under section 42(1) of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (the DVAT Act) since refund withheld unjustifiably.
ITAT Bangalore held that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy is not religious activity but are more concerned with the life style of the human beings and therefore is eligible for approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purchases on which no value added tax was claimed nor granted.
The department issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the petitioner had received loan from its 100% subsidiary i.e., Gul Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Madras High Court held that even though the time limit is not prescribed for filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same should be filed within a reasonable time.
Associated Chambers of Commerce And Industry of India Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that action of reassessment merely on the allegation of delayed digital filing of Form 10 without based on the formation of an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Facts- […]
Madras High Court held that personal hearing through video conferencing or other mode was not provided inspite of specific request. Hence, order passed without satisfying mandatory requirement of section 144B of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
