Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Indore) The basis of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as per Ld. Pr. CIT is that transfer pricing related issues were not examined by the A.O. since the transaction carried out by the assessee are covered under specific domestic transactions. The contention […]
Parnami Pump & Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Bogus Purchases Cannot Be Wholly Disallowed Without Disallowing Sales Only Gross Profit (GP) Rate Should Be Added as Undisclosed Income We find that the Assessing Officer had issued summons u/s.131 to the proprietor of the said entity from whom assessee has made purchases, but that […]
Approval given by approving authority for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without due application of mind and in mechanical manner – reassessment should be quashed.
Since there was no separate payment made for the purchase of software embedded in mobile phones, therefore, no TDS to be deducted under Section 195 for software embedded in mobile phones imported by assessee during the previous year.
The only issue in the appeal is the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of Rs.63,03,005/- which is more than the exemption of Rs.52,90,424/- claimed by her
Line of judicial view is that the Revenue cannot be permitted to contend that there is a CBDT instruction No. 03/2010 dated 23/3/2010 to the contrary. No CBDT circular or instruction can be contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, even subsequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon AO who otherwise was not the AO of assessee, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was quashed and since reopening was quashed, subsequent orders passed on account of such reopening were also quashed.
Making of wrong claim due to inadvertent clerical error committed by Chartered Accountant could not be classified as furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) when assessee had voluntarily filed revised computation and AO had completed assessment on the basis of details furnished by assessee.
Vidya Bharati Society for Education & Scientific Advancement Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Merely because the contributions from students were collected under the nomenclature of development fee cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of section 12(1) read with section 11(1)(d) of […]
Clause (h) of Rule 2A specifically provides that ‘salary’ includes dearness allowance, if the terms of employment so provede, but excludes all other allowances and perquisites. Accordingly, the performance bonus received by the appellant did not form part of ‘salary’ for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 10(13A) of the Act.
