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...
After demonetisation, country is going to face another challenge in the form of GST. Tax-payers as well as general public is in haphazard position. States of India and government offices are facing problems in respect of the working of GST.
Ld. AR submitted that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Deepak Bhargawa in I.T.A. No.343/Del/2012 dated 13.11.2014 had clearly held that section 194C would not be applicable for reimbursement of expenditure.
The issue that a particular expenditure incurred by assessee is a capital expenditure or a revenue one has remained controversial. The facts & circumstances of each case differ. However, the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect guide in resolving the issue.
There are some ground realities which should be taken into account while implementing in a short period of time, the new law countrywide, replacing Value Added Tax, Excise, Service Tax, etc. and making golden handshake with VAT of different States of India and Central Excise, Service Tax and some other notified taxes, presently in operation.
Many cases are coming to the courts where the legitimacy of the search and seizure is challenged. It is being continuously held in cases coming to the courts that before a search, conditions mentioned in section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) should be fulfilled.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the leading case, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
There has been constant reopening of assessments by Assessing Authorities on mere change of opinion while law is well settled on the point that an assessment cannot reopened by recourse to section 147/ 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer(AO).
Under section 145 of the Act, rejection of books of accounts is pre-requisite, where books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee, for making additions by the AO on account of estimation of profit.
Whether ITAT was right in holding that the income earned by the appellant from the shopping center was required to be taxed under the head “income from House Property” instead of the head “Profits and Gains from the Business or Profession” as claimed by the Appellant
Assessee was entitled to full exemption under section 54F when the full amount was invested by the assessee even though the property was purchased in the joint names for the sake of convenience
