Appellant contended that section 43D of the Act itself recognises recognition of taxability of such interest and that when a specific provision in the nature of section 43D of the Act has been made, and entities like the assessee are excluded from the purview thereof, the assessee cannot indirectly claim benefit which would amount to […]
This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 26.9.2001. Appeal was admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law.
This Tax Appeal is filed challenging the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.08.2006. The Tax Appeal has been taken up for consideration of following substantial questions of law: [A] “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of […]
(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order date 23.4.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 1995- 96.
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment for A.Y 2008-2009 is sought to be reopen beyond the period of six years, solely on the directions issued by the learned CIT [A], which has been subsequently set-aside by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that otherwise, the re-assessment proceedings beyond six years is not permissible.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has in the case of Hariom Steels Pvt Ltd has held that penalty cannot be levied when deeming provisions are applied for assessing income.
Extract of Reply Submitted by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi High Court in which he stated that he never asked senior advocate Mr. Ram Jethmalani to pose objectionable questions to Mr. Arun Jaitley or use objectionable words while recording of evidence in the Rs. 10-crore defamation suit initiated by Mr. Arun Jaitley.
On Further hearing in the case of J K Mittal & Company Vs. Union Of India & Ors. on 18th July 2017, Delhi High Court has held that till further orders, all legal services provided by advocates, law firms of advocates, or LLPs of advocates will be continued to be governed by the reverse charge […]
Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption of sales tax payments was not a trading receipt but was a capital receipt, hence not liable to tax?
