JCIT vs Amandeep Singh Bhatia: ITAT Indore dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 2,48,02,084/- addition as income from other sources. Detailed analysis provided.
Disallowance made by CPC on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) rws 2(24)(x) of Act u/s 143(1) of Act is correct.-ITAT Kolkata
SC held that assessee was not the owner of bitumen for Section 69A, and bitumen could not be classified as an ‘other valuable article’ under section 69A.
Facility of exchange of Rs 2000/- denomination Bank Notes to all members of the public upto a limit of Rs.20000/- at a time will be allowed without obtaining any requisition slip as per the format attached in Annexure-III. Further no identity proof is required to be submitted by the tenderer at the time of exchange
To facilitate the exchange of ₹2000 banknotes, banks have introduced a simple and user-friendly Request Slip. In this article, we will walk you through Annexure-III, the Request Slip for exchanging ₹2000 banknotes.
Explore the recent ITAT Delhi decision (Amit Tyagi vs DCIT) highlighting that the non-production of directors doesnt justify addition for advancing loans. Assessee’s documentary evidence, PANs, and banking transactions were deemed valid. Get insights into the arguments, observations, and legal perspective.
ACIT Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank (ITAT Indore) Provision for Standard Assets Allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) of Income Tax Act, 1961
ACIT Vs. Armee Infotech (ITAT Ahmedabad) RASHTRIYA KOMI EKTA PARTY IS ONE OF THE ‘23’REGISTERED UNRECOGNISED POLITICAL PARTIES. The grievance of the Revenue in its appeal for the Asstt.Year 2012-13 is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs.55 lakhs in respect of donation to political parties under section 80GGC of the Act. […]
High Court held that Income Tax Faceless assessment order under section 143(3) rws 144B becomes invalid if Assessment is completed without following standard operating procedure (SOP).
Decision of jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over AO should be followed and applied by NFAC. Relief should not be refused to taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court.
