Income Tax : In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. -Vs- The Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, there were several grounds on which the appeal ...
Income Tax : ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha (ITAT Bangalore) It was held by ITAT that voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose ...
Income Tax : DCIT Vs M/s Ansh Intermediate Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) The addition cannot be sustained only for the simple reason that t...
Income Tax : CIT Vs Late Gopal V. Gorwani (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer, on perusing the aforesaid terms of the agreement was of the view...
Income Tax : Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- ITO (ITAT Delhi) There is no tangible material, which come to the possession of the AO to lead to t...
The ITO Vs Shri Radhey Shyam Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur) Once, there is an impending dispute between assessee and M/s. Laxmi Carpet Enterprises then it cannot be assumed that liability for payment has ceased
In the case of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Hoshiarpur , the assessee being a trust was registered under the Punjab Towns Improvement Trusts Act, 1922. It was providing services under the control and supervision of State Government for development of cities and towns.
In the case of Bhavya Anant Udeshi Vs ITO (International Taxation) it was held by ITAT Hyderabad that provision of section 50C being a deeming provision, it cannot be used for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) unless it is proved that Assessee has received any amount over
The Delhi High Court Has Held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal.
In the case of CIT vs Kapil Nagpal, it was held by the Delhi High Court that purchase of an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes did not violate 54F conditions. Further the exclusive ownership of the residential house on the date of transfer is required to prove violation of Section 54F.
In the case of ACIT Vs Shri Kamlakar Moghe it was held by Nagpur Bench of Bombay HC that deduction u/s 54EC can be claimed by the assessee despite making the investment in REC bonds beyond six months if the delay was due to non-availability of the REC Bonds.
A search took place on 14.02.2006 in the premises of M/s Radico Khaitan.In the course of these search proceedings, various documents including reports narrating amounts alleged to have been received or receivable from various members of the UPDA and the basis thereof were recovered.
Sanjeev Mittal Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) The assessee was a medical practitioner with professional income and income from capital gains as returned income. The A.O. contended the income from capital gains to be the income from business or profession as he noticed that the professional receipts
HC held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount not being bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified.
The contention of the revenue was that the intention of the Legislature is to benefit those institutions which cater to variety of illness and suffering as a service to the society and solely for philanthropic purpose and not for the purpose of profit.
