Once the claim under section 35D of the Act was accepted in the initial year i.e. AY 1995-96, then the clock had started running in favour of the assessee which was to continue for the entire period of ten years and the benefit once granted in the initial year could not be denied in the subsequent years.
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(E) is correct in rejecting the Application for grant of registration u/s 12AA for mere non-filing of Income Tax Return?
Shri Babulal Vani Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) The issue under consideration is if the assessee is in a position to reconcile the discrepancy raised under survey with positive material,then, the A.O. should give relief to the assessee or not? In the present case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of grain, cotton, […]
Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether assessee is liable for exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act without disallowing any expenditure under section 14A? ITAT noted that this issue is duly covered by decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. […]
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in disallowing the expense of retainership debited in P & L on the basis of non deduction of TDS u/s 194C when the Same was shown as salary by recipient in their Income Tax return?
whether CIT(A) is justified in quashing the action of the AO u/s 154 in applying provision of section 115BBE on undisclosed investment surrendered during the course of survey proceedings?
whether CIT(A) is justified in quashing the action of the AO u/s 154 of the Act in applying provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act on undisclosed investment surrendered during the course of survey proceedings?
The issue under consideration is whether the Income-tax payment made by assessee is an application of income and will be eligible for deduction u/s 11?
TAT states that the order passed by CIT(A) is not clear in as much way the ld. CIT(A) has given a general direction without having regard to the factual aspects of ‘receipts and expenditure’ relating to exhibitions presented before ITAT. A clear cut direction from ld. CIT(A) in this regard would be helpful to both the assessee and the AO.
The issue under consideration is whether the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) can be invoked in case of agricultural land where it doesn’t qualify as falling in the definition of capital asset?
