ITAT Mumbai held that even after request from assessee to refer DVO for correct fair market value of the subject property, AO was duty-bound to refer the same to DVO. Accordingly, matter remanded back with a direction to refer the matter to DVO and decide the issue.
Madras High Court held that approaching court directly against the impugned notice without allowing department to consider the defence reply and providing opportunity of hearing is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, court directed petitioner to appear for personal hearing before respondent.
ITAT Bangalore held that payment made towards service charges to CGTM France doesnot fall under the category of fees for technical service. Accordingly, TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
ITAT Kolkata held that post disallowance of employee contribution to PF, only 40% will be taxed as business income in terms of applicable provisions of rule 8(1) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 as assessee is engaged in tea plantation business.
ITAT Jaipur held that cost of improvement cannot be rejected on the reason that building plan approval, property tax, etc. not provided as no building approval is required for construction area of 870 Sq. Fts and property tax was not leviable on the residential house property. Cost of improvement allowable as valuation report submitted.
Pawan Raj Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act via rectification order passed under section 154 stating there was mistake apparent from record is based on surmises and conjectures and hence unsustainable. Facts- Assessee has preferred the present appeal contending that […]
ITAT Delhi held that ESOP (Employees Stock Option) expense is allowable expense under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in computing the income in profit and loss of business or profession.
Allahabad High Court held that word infrastructure in exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 includes all construction activities other than construction of market shed, shops etc. which are necessary for providing Post-harvest infrastructure for agricultural produce.
Calcutta High Court held that as submitted by assessee non-filing of reply and not appearing for hearing in spite of several opportunity simply stating reason of COVID-pandemic not justifiable. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that as entire reasons for reopening were recorded by incorrect assumption of facts, accordingly, reopening was invalid and bad-in-law. Hence, subsequent invocation of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is untenable in law.
