Nand Lal Popli Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Assessing Officer, for making the impugned addition has started with the presumption that an amount to the extent of 92% of the gross receipts is the expenditure incurred by the assessee, which is a totally wrong premise. If the income component is estimated, how the expenditure component on [&hell...

The issue under consideration is whether interest u/s 201(1A) will be levied on assessee even if NRI seller had already paid taxes as per his return?...

whether interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land in the nature of compensation is exempt u/s 10(37) or chargeable to tax under head 'Income from Other Sources'?...

The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in upholding IDC receipts as normal trading receipts ignoring that the money belongs to state government?...

ACIT Vs Shri Gurdeep Singh (ITAT Chandigarh) The intention behind enacting provisions of section 2(22) (e) are that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as divide...

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?...

Transactions between the assessee and the Commission Agent were relating to the sale of agriculture crops, therefore, there was no receipt or repayment of loan or deposit, accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271 E of the Act is also deleted....

Fastway Transmission (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Set top boxes was the property of CISCO which was taken by assessee on lease from CISCO against payment of lease charges thus assessee was not entitled to claim the principal component of alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1) however, entitled to ...

TAT see no reason to uphold the levy of penalty in the present case U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the basis for levy of penalty, being cancellation of registration granted to the assessee U/s 12A of the Act and as a consequence treating its surplus and corpus donation as not exempt but taxable under the Act, has been quashed by the ITAT...

Assessee was not eligible for exemption from payment of MAT as per the provisions of section 115JB(6), since, admittedly, it did not qualify as a business or services rendered by an entrepreneur or developer in a unit or SEZ as per definition of the said terms in the SEZ Act....