Delve into the case of Asha Modern Educational Society challenging the denial of income application for charitable purpose under Sections 11 & 12 of the IT Act. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
Detailed analysis of the Delhi ITAT’s ruling in ACIT Vs Dhruv Milkose Pvt. Ltd., regarding the taxation of premium charged on the issue of shares to existing shareholders under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs DCIT – Ahmedabad ITAT rules CIT(A) must discuss case merits before dismissing appeal for non-prosecution. Full analysis here.
Debarghya Chattopadhaya vs DCIT – Kolkata ITAT rules taxpayer, possessing tax residency certificate and taxed in another contracting state, deserves treaty benefit u/s 90. Full analysis here.
DCIT vs Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi ITAT rules Rule 11UA(2)(A) doesn’t require a valuation report for substantiation under NAV method for determining FMV. Full analysis here.
ITAT Kolkata held that for determining fair and true profit for the purpose of application of Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), it is appropriate that the effect of depreciation must be excluded.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee failed to get its books of accounts audited based on a reasonable cause. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for failure to get books of account audited not leviable as assessee reasonable cause shown.
ITAT Chandigarh held that excess stock found during the course of survey cannot be brought to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69B of the Income Tax Act as the same is undeclared business income and not unexplained investment.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation received by the assessee in out of court settlement for unilaterally terminating certain obligation under the agreement is an income assessed to business income and not an income assessed to capital gains as claimed by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee was residing as well as carrying on her profession at Bangalore and thus, assumption of jurisdiction by the AO at Mumbai was invalid. Thus, an order which is passed without jurisdiction is non est in the eyes of law.
