Delhi High Court invalidates 2018-19 tax assessment, citing inadequate opportunity for defense and procedural violations. Details on the case and court ruling.
ITAT find that jewelry has been found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee. The jewellery was inventorised. The claim of the assessee that this has been received as a gift from relatives and friends is not at all substantiated but merely remained a claim. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the learned lower authorities in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,867,098/– u/s 69B of the act after granting benefit of 500 g of gold jewellery to the assessee in terms of CBDT instruction number 1916.
Read the detailed analysis of ACIT Vs Tata Autocomp case by ITAT Pune. Disputed deduction of Rs.2.64 crore for Administrative Service charges, resolved in favor of the assessee.
Explore ITAT Pune resolution in ACIT vs. Rohan & Rajdeep case. Deduction dispute u/s 80IA(4) for infra projects analyzed. Reopening validity examined.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai ruling in AP Enterprises case. Analysis of activities—camp mobilization, construction, wiring—under Survey and Exploration of Mineral services.
Baljeet Yadav Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is evident from the assessment order and impugned order that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash deposits made in the bank during the demonetarization period. It is prima facie not clear whether it was a limited scrutiny case or a detailed […]
Calcutta High Court sets aside IT order in Aman Khetawat vs ITO case due to violation of natural justice. Fresh order instructed. Calcutta High Court sets aside IT order in Aman Khetawat vs ITO case due to violation of natural justice. Fresh order instructed.
ITAT held that deduction under Section 80IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 allowable on scrap generated during the manufacturing process.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (the IBBI/ Board) is one of the four key pillars of the ecosystem responsible for implementation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code).
Shubham Thakral Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that only three days’ time was granted to the Petitioner to respond as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. He further states that though the annexure annexed with the notice granted the Petitioner eight days’ time to respond, […]
