Income Tax : In the case of Shri Vishal Dipak Shah Vs. Addl. CIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that Principle of Res judicata does not apply to the...
Income Tax : ACIT Vs. Sagar Nitin Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, the assessee has constructed a house prior to the date of transfer ...
Income Tax : G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of fee under Section 234E of t...
Income Tax : In the case of DCIT Vs. Deepak Chaudhary Kolkata Bench of ITAT have held that the assessee has cumulatively satisfied all the cond...
Income Tax : In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one...
Income Tax : In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information...
Income Tax : In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts fo...
Income Tax : In the case of M/s DDRC SRL Diagnostic P Ltd. Vs. ITO Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that If the hospitals/laboratories act as mer...
Hon’ble court has observed that in the case of Bajrang Lal (supra) it was held that it is settled law that the primary burden to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.
Whether revenue is right in passing order giving instruction to bank to pay 50% of the demand raised against assessee when appeal against the assessment order was pending before CIT (A).
‘On money’ received by the assessee did not have the character of income but was only an advance like the one received through cheque. Both will become part of the sale consideration to the assessee simultaneously on either handing over the possession of the flats or on execution of transfer deed whichever happens earlier.
The dividend can be received or deemed to have been received only by shareholder of the company, therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) enlarging the scope of dividend under the express deemed dividend cannot be invoked in case of a person who is not a shareholder of the company who has advance the loan.
Tribunal in this above case decided two debatable issues. Firstly that the mistake can be rectified after assessment attained finality and assessee had accepted the assessment order. The same is decided by the tribunal in the light of decision of apex court.
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s Jindal Photo Limited in I.T.A. No. 814/Del/2011, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has also expressed similar view, in which it has been held that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is pre-requisite to invoke the provisions of Rule 8D.
G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 while processing the statement furnished by the assessees under Section 200A of the Act which was held as unsustainable
CIT Vs. Mechmen (Madhya Pradesh High Court) In this case court observed that satisfaction was not recorded by the AO before issuing notice u/s 153C which is a fact decided by ITAT. No paper or document was seized against the assessee in the search operation.
Both assessee and revenue are in appeal against the action of deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. CIT (A) has deleted part of penalty levied but another part of the penalty was retained by him. Assessee is in appeal against the retention order and revenue is against the deletion of penalty.
Provision of section 147 states that revenue can reopen an assessment within four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year in which return was filed, if any income escaped from assessment. If revenue wants to reopen an assessment after the expiry of four years prescribed then there must be failure on part of assessee to disclose fully
