Explore Jayaprakasha Rai appeal against ITAT Bangalore order on TCS credit denial for Assessment Year 2018-19. Detailed analysis and implications discussed.
Assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for non deduction of tax at source as per provisions of Chapter XVII-B towards amount paid as External Development Charges (EDC) to Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana (Haryana Government) (DGTCP) through banking channel favouring Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
Notification of Seventy Second Investment Company LLC as a sovereign wealth fund under section 10(23FE) of the Income tax Act, 1961 vide Notification No. 69/2022-Income Tax, Dated: 27.06.2022 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022 Notification No. 69/2022-Income Tax S.O. 2910(E).—In exercise of powers conferred […]
Explore the case of Salasar Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. against ITO, focusing on the justification of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis and conclusion.
Explore the case of Vakeel Ahmad against ITO, focusing on bank deposits, withdrawals, and the taxation of peak credit. Detailed analysis of the order by ITAT Lucknow for Assessment Year 2010-11.
Dive into the case of Maninagar Co. Op. Bank Ltd. against DCIT, focusing on the disallowance of depreciation on Govt. Securities. Detailed analysis of the ITAT Ahmedabad’s order for AY 2012-13.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment in Bombay Real Estate Development Co. case, emphasizing absence of new material. Key analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT held that it is not a sham and bogus transaction. One of the grounds considered for recording that finding is that when the other party is a statutory body the question of evasion of tax does not arise
Assessee contended That National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in rejecting appeal filed by the assessee summarily by stating that appellant has not filed appeal against intimation order u/s 143(1) and tried to take back door entry by filing appeal against order u/s 154 for which the original cause of action has arisen at the stage of 143(1) itself without appreciating the fact that on first stage appellant has taken the remedy of filing application u/s 154 which is legal and as per the provision of Income Tax Act.
The assessee has received incentive in the form of Octroi refund under Govt. of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. in an identical set of facts has held subsidy received by the assessee under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 as capital in nature.
