Income Tax : Where a person required to furnish a return of income under Section 139, fails to do so within the time prescribed in sub-section ...
Income Tax : The Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contains an inclusive definition of the term business. There are differences betwe...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court, has held in CIT vs. Samara India(P) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 93 , following the decision of Supreme Court in T...
Income Tax : The provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to allowances disclose that the expenditure or outgoing sought to be deducted should...
Income Tax : In CIT vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. [2014] 221 TAXMAN 323, the Delhi High Court has observed (at page 341), that if the money paid rela...
Income Tax : In our view this is not a fair or proper procedure. If not in the first notice, at least at the time of furnishing the reasons the...
Income Tax : The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in ligh...
Income Tax : We noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted tha...
Income Tax : The estimate of warranty made by the assessee on the basis of past history cannot be treated as a provision for any ascertained li...
Income Tax : Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the ass...
In an appeal before Ahmedabad ITAT, DCIT vs. Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd., one of the grounds raised was that whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO on account of dis allowances of interest expenses of Rs. 44,19,194/- without considering the merits of the case.
Deletion Of Penalty In Case Of Bonafide Belief Of An Assessee: Especially When The Action Of Assessee Is Supported By Factual Circumstances And A Decision- Section 271 (1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the penalty in respect of failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.
An assessee is liable to penalty under section 221(1) of the Act in a case in which the though the assessee has not paid the self assessment tax under section 140A, while filing the return of income, but revises the income, by filing revised return of income, and pays the tax on the revised return of income at the time of filing the revised return of income?
In brief, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that FOWC carried on business in India for the duration of the race (and for two weeks before the race and a week thereafter). A PE must have three characteristics: stability, productivity and dependence.
It was held by Supreme Court in Karnani Properties Ltd vs. CIT [1972 AIR 2315, 1972 SCR (1) 457] that it is for the Tribunal to find facts and it is for the High Court and this Court to lay down the law applicable to the facts found. Neither the High Court nor this Court has jurisdiction, to go behind or to question the statements of facts made by the Tribunal.
Registration U/s. 12AA cannot be cancelled on the ground that trust has not yet commenced charitable or religious activity- CIT vs. Shreedhar Sewa Trust (Allahabad High Court)
The purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the seized documents had to be shown to belong to the other person and not merely pertaining to such other person. The change brought about in this regard in Section 153 C of the Act by way of amendment has been given prospective effect from 1st June 2015.
Before Passing An Order Under Section 263 Principal Commissioner Or Commissioner Of Income Tax Has To Make His/Her Own Enquiry
Bombay High Court held in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Parle Bisleri Ltd. that Procedural rules cannot be ignored even litigant is Government/ Revenue and Revenue should not follow tendency of blaming Advocate or procedural rules for dismissal of appeal
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such legislative provisions cannot be amended by CBDT in exercise of its power under Section 119 of the Act. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held the circular ultra virus and quashed the same.
