It was a case where the statutory procedure mandated in section 144C had been attempted to be by passed by merely mentioning the name of the assessee as the amalgamated entity with its former name and the name of amalgamating company.
ITAT Mumbai remands case after CIT(E) rejects 12A registration due to missing documents, directing the applicant to submit required details for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai rules PCIT’s revision under Section 263 as erroneous. The tribunal holds non-initiation of penalty proceedings cannot justify revision. Read full case details.
DCIT Vs Meridian Chem Bond Private Limited (ITAT Pune) Does Proving the Three Main Ingredients by Assessee U/S 68 Shift the Burden of Proof On AO? Assessee is a company that duly files its return of income. The Revenue carried a search in case of another group concern & it was discovered that it was […]
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment in Top Class Capital Markets Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT due to incomplete disclosure of reasons for reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Assessee was specifically asked to justify its claim as the agreement had to be with (a) Central Government (b) State Government (c) Local Authority or (d) Statutory Authority and LMRCL did not fit in any of the four categories.
ITAT Mumbai rules on Radiant Life Care’s appeal against disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Key interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(ii) discussed.
ITAT Mumbai rules CBDT notification cannot deny S. 80IB(10) deduction to SRA projects approved before 01/04/2004, citing legislative intent.
ITAT Mumbai held that exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT on the basis of factual misconception is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order u/s. 263 quashed.
