Income Tax : In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that frami...
Income Tax : In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for...
Income Tax : In the case of Shree Hari Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Kolkata Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of alleged excess consu...
Custom Duty : In the Case of M/s GMR Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of...
Corporate Law : In the case of Shamsher singh verma vs. State of Haryana, the Apex court on the point of admissibility of evidence held that the â...
In the case of M/s Blessing Construction vs. ITO The Ahmedabad Tribunal has held Merely because the Assessing Officer or the ITAT did not consider the evidences to be sufficient for the purpose of explaining the cash credit u/s 68, it will not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Brief of the case- ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case of Arvind Murjani Brands Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT that As the amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, then the command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing
In the case of Smt. C. Vijay Kumari vs.ITO the Hyderabad ITAT has held that addition made by AO to the total income of the assessee on account of profit arising from sale of agricultural land treating the same as business income instead of capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt
In CIT vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike, the Karnataka High Court on the issue of applicability of TDS provision held that section 194LA only applies to compulsory acquisition of land and not on voluntary acquisition.
The assessee has an agricultural land. During A.Y. 2010-11, M/s Indian Oil Coproration Ltd, had laid down the underground pipe-line. The Land of the assessee was in the way of pipe line to be laid down. For digging of land and laying the pipe-line, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The two appeals filed against the order passed by the Deputy CIT were identical in facts and the issues rose. The core issue involved was the addition made by the AO on account of Arm’s length price determined by Transfer Pricing Officer and confirmed by Dispute Resolution Panel.
First Blue Home Finance Ltd vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The assessee was 100% Indian subsidiary of BHW Holding AG (BHW Germany) and was engaged in the business of providing loans to retail customers for the construction or purchase of residential properties in India.
The assessee company was incorporated on 31.05.2005 pursuant to the reorganization of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.During the course of survey conducted on 18.12.2008, it was noticed that the assessee had made payment to MSETCL and PGCIL under the BPTAs without deducting tax at source.
The matter involves three assessment years, namely,2010-11,2011-12and 2012-13.The Assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and nonferrous metals. During a scrutiny assessment related to A.Y. 2010-11
The assessee company was engaged in the making of High Pressure Gas Cylinder and compressed natural gas cylinders. The assessee has subsidiary company at Dubai.The A.O. disallowed interest as per ruled 8D read with section 14A of the Act w.r.t to dividend income of Rs.3191330/-
