Since the major write off claim evidently pertained to vaccines which assessee consistently claimed had been nearing expiry and thus had no realizable value and nothing had been pointed out regarding the insufficiency of evidences filed by assessee, therefore, the claim of assessee was fully justified for write off of vaccines since undoubtedly such vaccines were not capable of being used beyond expiry period and had no realizable value thereafter.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that in the absence of reasons, the jurisdiction assumed under section 148 of the Act to reopen a completed assessment is clearly void ab initio and consequently, assessment order is bad in law.
Y. C. Kallinatha Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee had received a gift of Rs.22.50 lakh from Shri T.C.Shivakumar, who is brother-in- law of the assessee. The assessee had considered the transaction not coming within the purview of section 56(2)(vi) of the I.T.Act since gift was received from a relative covered under the definition of […]
Electrotherm (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: Since AO after applying his mind on information received from VAT Department arrived at the conclusion, based on the reasons to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment. and at the time of issuing notice under section 148 AO had formed prima facie opinion for escapement […]
Chief Accounts Officer Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Provisions of section 194LA of the Act would apply only in the case of a compulsory acquisition and not to a case where lands were surrendered by land owners under section 14B of KTCP Act. Hon’ble High Court also held that since BBMP is not paying consideration for […]
M/s. Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee has in the present case filed material before the TPO to demonstrate the nature of services rendered. In the paper book filed before us the index of the paper book gives a description of the service. We are of the view that the […]
When there was no valid return available before AO as assessee neither filed original return under section 139(1) nor filed any return in response to the notice issued under section 148 within the prior limit of 30 days as stated in the notice under section 148, there is no requirement of issuance of notice under section 143(2).
Vodafone India Services Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 1. By way of this application, the asses see-applicant seeks a stay on collection recovery of the tax and interest demands, aggregating to Rs 1128.46 crores, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014- […]
SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The argument of the learned AR is that Infosys Limited is functionally different from the assessee. It owns intangible and undertakes research and development. The learned AR also submitted that it has high brand value and turnover. On the contrary, the learned DR submitted that the […]
JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Current appeal has been filed against the order dated March 30, 2021 (Impugned order) passed by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Respondent) under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). It is challenged on the ground of the invocation of jurisdiction by the Respondent without […]
