Incentive meant for small scale industrial undertakings cannot be availed by industrial undertakings which do not continue as small scale industrial undertakings during the relevant period, the bench held.
There is no allegation of any suppression of turnover. It is only with regard to non filing of Form C declaration or certain defects in Form C declaration. Thus, it is not a case where any penalty can be levied more so when there was no proposal in the revision notice dated 28.05.2007.
Advance deposit of central excise duty constitutes actual payment of duty within the meaning of Section 43B of the Central Excise Act and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction of the said amount.
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently rejected the plea for setting off of unabsorbed depreciation since Hospitals can’t be treated as an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section Section 72A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
SBI Officers Coop. Credit Society Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad, dated 2.11.2016 confirming the dis allowance of Rs. 77,44,295 claimed by the assessee as a deduction u/s 80P of the Act. […]
An issue which had been examined in detail during original assessment itself, could not be re-examined in exercise of powers of reassessment, therefore, notice under section 148 was set aside.
These are bunch of seven appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 . First we shall take up cross appeals field by the assessee as well as the Revenue in ITA 4284/Mum/2014 and 1807/Mum/2011 for assessment year ( AY ) 2006-07 respectively.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently ruled that the service tax collection shall be deducted from gross Receipts while computing the profit for the purpose of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
1. The impugned additions and disallowance made in the order dated 29-12-2011 under section 143(3) of the Act, bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be deleted.
The primary condition of reasonable belief having nexus with the material on record is still operative. However, we are of the view, that mere fresh application of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the assessing officer even under the post-1989 section 147 of the Act.
