Devinder Singh Gill Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Since the recovery in this case has been stayed subject to the deposit of Rs. 20 lacs, in total, and if the assessee deposit Rs. 20 Lacs as ordered above, in that event, there will be no reason left with the TRO to keep the assessee in jail. […]
As assessment for impugned assessment year was not pending on the date of search, therefore, no addition could to be made in assessment framed under section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during search.
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?
Income of the assessee from the incidental and commercial activity i.e. income from organizing of Davis Cup up to the limit prescribed as per the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, which for the assessment year under consideration is Rs. 25 lacs, will be treated as income from ‘charitable purposes’
Satbir & Ors. Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Capital gains–Interest on enhanced compensation arising on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land–Taxability Interest earned under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is on enhanced compensation, is treated as an accretion to the value and therefore, is part of the enhanced compensation or consideration. Therefore, interest on […]
The present Misc. Application has been moved by the applicant – assessee pleading that though the Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2017 had stayed the recovery of the balance amount to be recovered by the Department from the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10,
The Registry has put a note that the applications are time barred by five days. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the settled legal position of law, the applications cannot be treated as time barred. He in this respect has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), which read as under:-
Registration application u/s 12AA cannot be rejected merely on account of extraordinary powers with the managing trustee to appoint or remove other trustees and also to nominate their successor.
DCIT Vs M/s DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) In this case since there was no reason at all for reopening the case on the issue of treatment of royalty expenses ,since the same had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, before the recording of reasons for reopening the present case. […]
CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting approval sought by assessee under section 80G(5) on the allegation that assessee had sufficient disposable fund because sufficiency of funds available with an institution seeking the approval is not mentioned as condition under section 80G, which needs to be looked into before granting approval.
