Non-contest in the proceedings under Section 73 cannot be used as a ground or reason to establish and show that requirements of Section 78 are satisfied. The Tribunal after appreciating different aspects, including conduct of the respondent-Corporation has held that penalty should not be levied. The finding is a finding of fact.
Mere allotment of PAN under section 139A of the Act would not make the allottee necessarily a separate entity for the purpose of assessment of tax. The statute recognizes certain eventualities where quite outside the requirement of payment of tax and for filing return of income, the Assessing Officer may allot a PAN to individual.
As purchase of inventory is continuation of same business activity, the, proviso to section 36(1)(iii)(d) did not get attracted in case assessee having borrowed funds to purchase inventory, therefore, assessee was duly entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
HC held that Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay, turned its attention towards the assessee’s Chartered Accountant.
Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Limited Vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Broadly, it appears that the ITAT has gone on the usage of several terms such as debt syndication, debt financing, IPO advisory, corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions etc, appearing in the annual reports of the comparable to hold that the Assessee and the said comparables perform similar functions.
Principal CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Held by ITAT The circumstances under which the services rendered by the appellant society to the Banks make clear that there is no profit motive in such activities because these activities were entrusted to the appellant society by the Reserve […]
The undisputed fact reveals that at the time an ex-parte order was passed in assessee’s main appeal, the limitation prescribed under Section 254(2) was four years and the assessee was under an expression as the limitation is four years his application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was within limitation.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.3,50,000/ as against Rs.1,46,78,090/ made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D without appreciating the fact that for invoking disallowance u/s 14A, it is not material that the assessee should have earned such exempt income during the financial year under consideration as per CBDT circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014
CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court) Amount which has been subjected to levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the assessee agreed to the addition and did not challenge it in appeal. The Tribunal in paras 19 to 21 of its order considered the principles which have to be invoked and […]
A change of religion and loss of caste was at one time considered as grounds for forfeiture of property and exclusion of inheritance. However, this has ceased to be the case after the passing of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. Section 1 of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act inter alia provides that if any […]
