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
CIT(A) merely followed certain case laws without discussing nature of expenses claimed by assessee – Order not sustainable
Held that as identity and creditworthiness of the investors is established, merely because of delay in transferring of the shares to the prospective investors, the amount cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s 68.
Held that a residential house for the purpose of section 54F(1) deduction can indeed cover multiple units in same or different towers or residential blocks
Held that no part consideration of acquisition of asset/property was paid on alleged execution of possession-cum-Satakat and there is no other corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim of assessee. Capital gain treated as STCG instead of LTCG.
It is settled position of law that AO cannot levy penalty on charges different from the charges for which penalty proceedings were initiated
With the advent of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), there has been a transformative turnaround in the corporate insolvency resolution framework in India. However, the IBC does not accommodate and provide for specific arrangements or contains any provision for group insolvency as the legislation itself is still evolving and is designed for a single economic entity.
DCIT Vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd (ITAT Pune) The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of Container Freight Station (CFS). At the outset, we note that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by […]
ITO Vs Tilak Proficient Nidhi Limited (ITAT Allahabad) The ld. CIT(A) simply accepted all the contentions /additional evidences filed by the assessee, without complying with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as it was incumbent on ld. CIT(A) to have forwarded all these additional evidences/explanations filed by assessee to the AO for its […]
