When income of the assessee was computed by applying gross profit rate, there was no need to look into the provisions of section 40A(3), as applying the gross profit rate takes care of expenditure otherwise by way of cross cheque also. Following the same the action of Tribunal could not be held as unjustified.
Returns of income filed in response to notice under section 153A are as a consequence of search action taken under section 132 on the assessees. These proceedings are analogous to proceedings under section 147, i.e., reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income.
(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court) Issues Under Consideration (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was right and justified in holding that assessee was liable to withhold tax at source under S.194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.19,74,842/- (including interest) […]
The respondents are directed to ensure that all those who hold a Ration Card are issued the Rations as per the entitlement without insisting upon the holder of the Ration Card obtaining an Aadhar Card.
CIT Vs M/s. Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) What is clearly discernable from the penalty order is that reference was not made to any particular or specific date by which assessee was required to submit the documents; or whether the same were furnished within 30 days or within the extended period of 30 days […]
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not acted illegally and perversely in making observations with regard to grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide any application/appeal arising out of order passed either granting or rejecting exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act by the competent authority ?
Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8956/2015 decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments.
In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the assessee had income of interest through FDRs and while setting off that the Assessing Officer as well as the ITAT did not examine the aspect as to under which provision the assessee claimed deduction or set off his income from other sources against […]
Where AO allowed set off of interest earned on fixed deposits against interest payable on borrowings then such allowance was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, therefore, CIT rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction.
