A division bench of the Delhi High Court, last day held that mere voluntary surrender of income without disclosing its source cannot rescue assessee from facing penal consequences under the Income Tax Act.
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Central Revenue v. Chhattisgarh Urology Society recently announced that a society consists of urologist doctors eligible for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
D.C.I.T Vs. M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On a perusal of the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of proceedings we find that the Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing […]
Manek Lodge Properties Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the assessee is nothing but association of co-owners of certain properties whose only objective is to derive income from letting out of property and nothing more. The bench also held that if the contention of Assessee is to be accepted, […]
We are of the view that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely because reply has not been received by the AO in response to notice issued under Section 133(6). The AO having issue the notice and such notice having been served on the person concerned, the AO has to take the process to the logical end. He cannot draw adverse inference merely because reply has not been received.
In the case of Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd, Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that addition cannot be made since the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the non-existent amalgamated company and not on the amalgamating company.
Assessee was engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities, financing and granting loans and advances against shares. The assessee earned exempt dividend income and made suo moto dis allowance against the same under section 14A.
The present appeal has been filled by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.204/GST/DL-Appl-II/17/ vide which the Commissioner (A) has set aside the order of adjudicating authority.
Under GST Act , The Services provided by M/s TPADL with respect to the non-tariff charges recovered from their customers are not eligible for exemption and M/s TPADL is liable to pay tax on the aforesaid recovery made from their customers.
Maheshbhai Shantibhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The taxability of undisclosed income detected in the course of search in the case of partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is in question. We shall first take a look into the second proposition raised on behalf of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee, it […]
