AO had applied his mind while doing the assessment therefore, the investigation by AO could not be called ‘lack of investigation’ and revision order passed under section 263 was quashed.
t was decided that Incase it can be proved that the delay in filing of the appeal was on the advice of a professional, it would be considered that the delay is not attributable on the negligent/casual approach of the assessee.
Mumbai ITAT holds that while computing capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset received by the Assessee under a will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with respect to the year in which the first owner held the asset
ITAT held that profit from sale of property purchased to exploit commercially and sold as a stock in trade cannot be assessed to tax under the head capital gain and shall be assessed under the head, profit and gains of business or profession;
Vikas Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that if the cash deposited in assessee’s bank account has already been taxed in the hands of M/s. Kareem’s Hospitality Pvt. Ltd (employer of assessee) or in the hands of the director of the assessee company Mr. Kareem Dhanani then no addition is warranted in the hands […]
Transindia Freight Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that going by the principle of consistency in the stand taken by the Revenue in earlier as well as subsequent assessment years in scrutiny assessment proceedings, we hold that the income received from car rental of Rs.6,00,000/- is to be assessed as “income from […]
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order passed in variation of the procedures prescribed u/s. 144B of the Income Tax Act would render the assessment order as non est.
ITAT Mumbai held that that the ‘marked to market loss’ is not a notional loss and is, therefore, allowable expenditure.
ITAT Pune held that default in allotting ‘DIN and Order’ results into quashing of the impugned assessment as according to CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 such an order ought to be treated as to have never been issued herein.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from sale of software (i.e. copyrighted article) cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA.
