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...
DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Many cases are emerging out in which it is being held that where a claim by assessee is in respect of a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) cannot be imposed. Recently, in DCIT vs. PVR […]
Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer has to strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): Deutsche Bank case
The Delhi High Court held that the entire premise of the reassessment notices in this case is that the nondisclosure of the taxing event, i.e. allotment of shares (and the absence of any declaration as to value) deprived the AO of the opportunity to look into the records.
Recently, in the Kanaka Mahalakshmi Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT & vice-versa [ITA Nos. 299 & 300/VIZ/2017 and ITA Nos. 326 & 327/VIZ/2017, (A.Y.: 2012-13 & 2013-14), decided on 5.9.2018], there were cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue for the AYs 2012-13 & 2013 & 14. In ITA No. 299/VIZ/2007, one of the ground related to the addition of Rs. 26,10,443/- on account of interest on reverse fund.
Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai): The assessee had been unable to let out the property for the captioned period, he was entitled to deduction under section 23(1)(c) for vacancy allowance
Shilpa Shetty case: Recording of ‘satisfaction’ about the existence of an international transaction was only within the jurisdiction of the AO and CIT(A) could not substitute his satisfaction for that of the AO.
Recently, in Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.6680/Mum/2012 with ITA No.5553/Mum/2014 and ITA No.5479/Mum/2015, A.Y.: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, decided on 26.07.2018], briefly stated, the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals products filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 31.10.2005
The expression does not form part of the total income in Section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the income in question
Loesche India case: it is not necessary that all the payments/expenditure incurred by the assessee should have direct bearing on earning of income, but some payments are also made under certain business expediency
Where an Assessee follows the Accrual/Mercantile system of Accounting – as in this case – income can be recognised only when the matching expenditure is also accounted for irrespective of the cash outflows/inflows during the year. It would thus, not be correct to recognize the subsidies received for incurring specific expenditure as income without accounting for the corresponding expenditure
