Held that imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) justified as necessary record impounded by the department was not supplied to the assessee, accordingly assessee failed to comply with the notice u/s. 142(1).
No Addition of Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Period under section 69A If Cash Deposit Is Part of Receipts Shown on Presumptive Basis and When the Part of Cash Deposit in Pre Demonetisation-Period Was Accepted.
Eligibility of remuneration, share of profits received from partnership firm, whose profits are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of Income Tax
Estate of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai Vs DCIT CPC (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputed facts though the assessee has filed its return of income declaring an income of ₹ 1,288,261/– in the status of association of person of estate of a diseased individual. The tax liability is required to be computed as per the normal tax as […]
Held that the interest income in question is required to be taxed at 10% in terms of the provisions of Article 11(2) of the India-Japan DTAA
Held that addition made on estimated basis, without rejecting books of accounts of the assessee, is unsustainable in law
Held that the explanation of the source of these very small loans as given by friends of the assessee to help him in his share trading transactions, and which has been confirmed by two parties, cannot be dismissed as unbelievable.
Held that merely because the assessee is referred as a contractor in the agreement, it doesn’t detract the assessee from the position of being a developer, nor will deprive the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act.
Held that identity of the donors as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act has been established by the assessee. Accordingly, the donations cannot be categorized as anonymous donations and cannot be subjected to tax.
Held that for invoking revisionary power u/s 263 it is necessary to point out the error in the order and that too such an error should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
