If refund arises because of self-assessment tax, which falls in realm of expression `any other case’, the same gets covered within purview section 244A(1)(b), thereby entitling assessee to interest thereon.
Insurance policy was not taken by company under key man insurance & Merely, amount was paid by it so premium not allowed as business deduction
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act is leviable on loan taken by way of cash. Notably, repayment of cash loan by way of cheque wouldn’t exonerate the assessee from levy of penalty.
DCIT Vs Yazdani International Pvt Ltd (ITAT Cuttack) ITAT Cuttack that expenditure towards various computer software and stationary and the expenditure towards upgradation of software for filing of return before the ROC and website design is revenue in nature and hence allowable. Facts- The revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition […]
No prejudice was caused to the Assessing Officer on account of non-complying with the notice u/s 142(1) issued on 05.09.2019 and inaction of the Assessing Officer on the adjournment petition moved by the assessee would also enable the appellant to believe that the time to comply with the extension of time as prayed was granted.
Assessee failed to establish difference amount specified in Form 26AS and returns despite several opportunities – ITAT upheld addition
Blue Stampings & Forgings Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that Assessing Officer is not justified in taking drastic action of rejection of books of account which are audited and are without any qualification solely on the basis of general remarks that photocopy of the bills have been produced instead of original bills. No […]
Rajdhani Institute of Information Technology Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that the assessee had been served with a communication dated 21.08.2015 intimating that the return filed by it was a defective return and if the defect was not rectified the return would be treated as invalid. Assessee had not complied with the […]
Once claim has been allowed in scrutiny proceedings, then AO cannot withdraw the claim under section 154, by mere change of opinion and without there being any apparent mistake on record.
Arham Packaging Goods Pvt. Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Kolkata) Normally, we do not hesitate in adjourning the matters on the request of assessees but we find that it is a case of share application and share premium. There are large number of appeals pending on this issue before the Tribunal and out of them, 95% are […]
