HC after analyzing the provisions of section 48 and 112(1) of the Act has concluded that the assessee is entitled to avail the beneficial tax rate under section 112(1) of the Act.
Venkatesharaiyer Subramanian Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) There could be no quarrel on the fact that post-amendment to Sec. 54F, as applicable from AY 2015-16, deduction u/s 54F could not be claimed on purchase / construction of more than one residential house. However, the factual matrix would reveal that the assessee has made investment in one […]
Naresh Chand Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the sale deed was made in the month of October, 2013 therefore, the Assessee was supposed to invest u/s. 54EC of the Act within ‘six calendar months’ starting from November onwards and upto the month of April, 2014, which in the instant case […]
Subhag Projects Private Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee by issuing notices through ITBA System via e-Mail. It was submitted by the ld. AR that notices have been received but the assessee was unable to correspond with […]
Omansh Properties Private Limited Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Delhi High Court) 1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking clarification of the order dated 19th January, 2022 passed by this Court to the effect that the impugned notice dated 20th April, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income […]
Senapati Satija Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In Section 271B of the Act, the discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer to direct the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales etc. etc. The provisions empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty as per […]
Sudhi Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Assessee has filed her return of income at one place i.e. at Kolkata under her PAN A****2218B and the transactions done under PAN A****6846F are also duly reported and disclosed in the said return of income. No doubt has been shown by the revenue authorities on this contention of […]
Aadarh Developers Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot) Admittedly, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor. Therefore, the revenue has to be recognized by the assessee as per accounting standard 11 issued by the ICAI and not as per the accounting standard 7 which is applicable to the contractor. The accounting standard 11 says […]
DCIT Vs Essel Finance VKC Forex Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) assessee has advanced sum of Rs.7.5 Crores to another entity for taking a property on lease. The same has been treated by Ld. AO as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act on the ground that one of the directors of the assessee company held substantial […]
Rosa Impex Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) In acceptance of the death of Managing Director and brain haemorrhage of the present Director of the Appellant Company as legal disability due to mental insanity, etc. delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned at this end by invoking the principle […]
