ITAT Judgments judiciary-2

Deletion of Penalty in case of Bonafide belief supported by Factual Circumstances & Decision

DCIT Vs American Express India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

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....

Read More

ITAT explains law on Levy of penalty U/s. 221(1)

Claris Life Sciences Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (ITAT Ahemdabad)

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 revis...

Read More

No Penalty for claim which was allowed at one Stage and disallowed later on

DCIT Vs American Express India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

If a claim made by the assessee has been allowed at one stage and later on has been disallowed, ostensibly, the assessee can said to have some bona fide belief for making such a claim. ...

Read More

Deal cancellation compensation expense cannot be claimed from Capital Gain

Kodanda Ramaiah Varadhi Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)

Under the head Capital gains only direct expenses relatable to transfer of property are allowed as deduction. Therefore, the cancellation expenses should not be held to be incurred either for acquiring the property or for transfer of property...

Read More

Hoardings rent income of Housing Society is taxable as House Property Income

Bimanagar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Bimanagar Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)- ITAT held that income earned by the assessee, in consideration of having given rights to have play hoardings etc. are taxable as income from house property. Accordingly, deduction under section 24(a) was indeed admissible in the present case. Full Text of the ITAT Order is [&...

Read More

ITAT allowed to not to treat gold up to 500 Gm of Married Lady as undisclosed Income

Late Smt. Abida Mohammed Rakhangi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Late Smt. Abida Mohammed Rakhangi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that we cannot also shut our eyes to reality of Indian lives wherein there is a love, pride and preference of Indian households to invest and hold gold ornaments etc for their usage as well for rainy days wherein gold can be sold to […]...

Read More

Penalty u/s 221(1) for default in payment of self assessment tax u/s 140A wrt Original / Revised Income Tax Return

Claris Life Sciences Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Ahemdabad)

Law explained on whether an assessee who defaults on paying self assessment tax u/s 140A while filing the return of income is liable for penalty u/s 221(1) if he files a revised return of income and pays the tax thereon at the time of filing the revised return of income ...

Read More

AO cannot treat Agricultural land as capital Asset on mere assumptions

Mohit Suresh Harchandrai Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Though agricultural land sold by assessee had remained barren for a longer period and had been converted by purchaser thereof into non-agricultural land, however, AO could not give any cogent and convincing reason for disbelieving documentary and circumstantial evidence furnished by assessee prima facie establishing the land in question t...

Read More

Asset-wise subsidy alone can be reduced from the actual cost

Dayal Steel Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Patna)

If the subsidy is intended for meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, then such subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost, for the purpose of computing depreciation. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court, the law is that if the subsidy is asset-specific, such subsidy goes to reduce the actual cost. If the subsidy is to encourage settin...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax | |

Exemption U/s 54F cannot be denied for delay in filing Income tax returns

Smt. Amina Ismil Rangari Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Section 54F does not cast any statutory obligation on the part of assessee to file his return of income within the stipulated time period contemplated u/s 139 or 148 of the ‘Act’, as a precondition for entitling him to claim exemption under the said statutory provision....

Read More
Page 1 of 42812345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,504)
Company Law (3,434)
Custom Duty (6,631)
DGFT (3,467)
Excise Duty (4,048)
Fema / RBI (3,272)
Finance (3,475)
Income Tax (25,145)
SEBI (2,753)
Service Tax (3,286)

Search Posts by Date

October 2017
« Sep