The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of wrong appreciation of facts can be sustained in law?
DDIT (International Taxation) Vs M/s. SET Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) At the time of hearing of these appeals, it was brought to our notice that in assessment years 1999-2000 & 2000-01, identical issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal; and the Tribunal had reversed the orders of CIT(A) and held that […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Penalty u/s 271F will be levied for non filing of Income Tax Return even in case of reasonable cause?
ITAT reiterate that the assessee is seeking to claim exemption from income tax on gains arisen from sale of land on the ground that the land was an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes by the assessee and the onus is on the assessee to prove that its case strictly falls under exemption provisions as are contained in the 1961 Act. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT states that under this issue the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The payer is under obligation to deduct the tax at source and on account of failure of payer to deduct the tax at source, the penalty interest u/s 234B cannot be imposed on the payee.
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance under 14A can be exceed the actual expenditure incurred in this regard?
The issue under consideration is whether late fee u/s 234E can be levied prior to 1.6.2015 i.e. prior to enactment of section 234E?
Period of lease for which the property has been taken cannot be regarded as a decisive test to determine the nature of the expenditure. It is not disputed that the stamp duty amount has been paid on lease deed for the carrying on of the business of the assessee and therefore the amount of stamp duty paid for has to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the framing of an assessment against a non-existent amalgamating entity is sustainable in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition on account of advances from customers treating the same as unexplained liability (Section 68) is justified in law?
