M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present case is with respect to addition under the head ‘income from house property’ on the 32 unsold flats/shops by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that assessee is in the business of Civil Engineers, Builders and Developers and had in […]
Temporary surrender of professional membership creates inconveniences where the IP is:(a) conducting a process – corporate insolvency resolution, corporate liquidation, individual insolvency resolution and individual bankruptcy – under the Code;(b) is acting as an authorised representative representing any class of financial creditors;
Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective in nature and in such circumstances, if payee has paid tax to government account then payer cannot be held liable for non-deduction of TDS.
ITAT held that As there was part non-compliance by assessee with first notice under section 142(1) and complete non-compliance with subsequent notice under section 142(1), the AO was right in framing assessment order under section 144 and in denying allowance of interest and salary paid to partners by taking support of provisions of section 184(5).
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Section 278AA makes it clear that in order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to […]
Mohanlal Champalal Jain Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Assessing Officer has proceeded on wrong premise that even when called upon to state why the petitioner had not filed return of income, he had not responded to the said query. The petitioner did communicate to the Department that he had no taxable income and therefore, there […]
Assessee having already set up its business was eligible to claim basic administrative expenditure as business expenditure though business operations were commenced in the subsequent year.
B. Banu Bee Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) This Court in the case of Sri. Avainash Aradhya Vs. the Commissioner of Central Tax in Criminal Petititon No.497/2019 c/w Criminal Petition No.498/2019 by order dated 18.2.2019 has elaborately discussed the provisions of law and other aspects as to under what circumstances the bail has […]
PCIT Vs Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In this case Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Madhya Pradesh High Court held that The question raised by the revenue in regard to issuing the share at a premium is purely a question of fact. It is a prerogative […]
