Intimation issued under section 143(1) cannot be treated as order of assessment and on the basis of such order the assessee denied his statutory rights to file a revised return within the period of limitation.
Merely because an even higher authority has expressed similar satisfaction does not obliterate the satisfaction of appropriate authorities.
For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue had to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the LD. PCIT to conduct such inquiry.
Mahul Construction Corporation Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In this case The AO wants to tax the amount credited in capital a/c of retiring as well as continuing partners within the realm of 45(4) of the Act. So far as amount credited to capital a/c of retiring partners is concerned, notwithstanding the fact that there is […]
ADIT Vs. M/s. RBS Foundation India (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee is a limited share registered company under section 25 of the Act and is a separate and independent legal entity wherein RBS Bank India or ABN AMRO Foundation, Netherlands are neither the shareholders nor the promoters of the assessee. The assessee company has been formed with […]
M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Pr. C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee had filed various replies to the ld. PCIT in response to notice u/s of the Act 263 of the Act stating that all the issues raised by the PCIT have been examined by the AO during the course of assessment. The PCIT has […]
Expenditure on account of AMC of medical equipments etc., is not in the nature of fee for professional and technical services as construed under section 194J of the Act and hence, not liable to deduct TDS under section 194J of the Act. The assessee has deducted TDS under section 194C of the Act in regard to payments on AMC of medical equipments and machines etc.
While dismissing revenue’s appeal, the Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has declared that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act 1961 even though it registered as a hundred percent Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) under the Software Technology Park of India (STPI).
The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently rejected the plea for setting off of unabsorbed depreciation since Hospitals can’t be treated as an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section Section 72A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
SBI Officers Coop. Credit Society Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad, dated 2.11.2016 confirming the dis allowance of Rs. 77,44,295 claimed by the assessee as a deduction u/s 80P of the Act. […]
