The general prudence of the law is that the same income cannot be taxed twice. On other hand, the partners are not liable to pay tax on the remuneration which was already paid by the firm in its return of income.
Income Tax Reassessment invalid if A.O having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had failed to obtain the requisite sanction u/s 151 of the Act from the Pr. CIT qua his ‘reasons to believe’
Assessing authority had passed the order beyond his jurisdiction by calculating the cost of acquisition on basis of his own assumption.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition merely on the basis of third-party information, without any corroborative evidence, gathered by the Investigation Wing of the Department is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Indore held that TDS on salary is deductible on the basis of net salary i.e. gross salary (-) deduction under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, demanding amount on short-deduction of TDS calculated on gross salary is unsustainable.
ITAT Jaipur held that as the assessee is not driven primarily by desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity through advancement of an object of general public utility hence proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act is therefore not applicable and accordingly assessee is entitled to benefits of section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that once department issued the certificate of non-deduction of TDS under section 195(2), then department cannot disallow the same expenditure under section 40(a)(i) on the allegation that assessee failed to deduct TDS.
ITAT Chennai held that assessment of Long Term Capital Gain entirely in the hands of assessee instead of all the co-owners of the land is unsustainable in law. LTCG should be assessed in the exact proportion to the extent the land belongs to each such co-owners.
ITAT Bangalore held that inspite of repeated intimation informing the amalgamation of the assessee, the assessment has been completed on a non-existing i.e. amalgamated company and therefore the the assessment order in the name of amalgamated company is treated as null and void.
ITAT Chennai held that expenditure of Bio-technology Research & Development cannot be disallowed simply on the allegation that expenditure was incurred before the commencement of a new line of business as such matching concept not application in the present case.
