ITO Vs Adul Kayum Ahmed Mohd. tamboli (ITAT Mumbai) The hearing of the matter was concluded on 19/02/2020 and in terms of Rule 34(5) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the matter was required to be pronounced within a total period of 90 days. As per sub-clause (c) of Rule 34(5), every endeavor was […]
The issue under consideration is whether the lease income earned by the assessee is taxable under head Income from House Property or Income From Business ans Profession?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act for the Advances received for booking of commercial space?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely because the assessee claimed expenditure under a different head of income?
The issue under consideration is whether it is correct to treat the Subscription fees received from subscribers on sale of online product as Royalty income under Income Tax Act?
Santosh Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Tribunal has considered the guidance note of ICAI in respect of the tax audit U/s 44AB of the Act wherein the turnover or gross receipt in respect of speculative transactions has been considered as some total of positive and negative outcome of the speculative transactions. This Tribunal in a […]
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in treating the interest from Fixed deposits made in connection with Contract business as income from ‘Other sources’ in place of income from ‘Business’?
The issue under consideration is whether the Payment Gateway facilities provided by banks are liable for TDS provisions?
According to ITAT, the claim of assessee on account of Pay anomaly of employee crystallized during the year should have been accepted and he, therefore, granted relief to the assessee. Further, they observed that in the order dated 24.12.2009 for assessment year 2006-07 in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal decided that the liability crystallized during the year has to be allowed. Hence, now they do not find anything improper in the approach of the CIT(A) to allow the expenses in respect of which the liability crystallized during the year.
The issue under consideration is regarding application of Stay of Demand in front of Tribunal, whether the amendment done by Finance Act, 2020 in Section 254 will be applicable in present case?