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...
Whether tribunal was right in allowing appeal of the assessee holding that the interest income earned by the assessee on fixed deposits with the bank and other interest income are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA.
The language of section 14A includes that AO must record a satisfaction if he was unsatisfied with any incorrect claim of the assessee. If he failed to record such a finding then it cannot be said that he rightly invoked provision of section 14A.
The various authorities of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 has highlighted that the power under Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct a mere error of an AO, based upon an incorrect assumption of fact.
Hon’ble HC did not find any merit in the ground of delay in issuance of notice. Court further remitted the matters ITAT to decide afresh on merits. In the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Knitwears, particularly the contextual facts discussed
Whether CIT (A) has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by assessee. Whether CIT (A) was right in sustaining the additions made by AO which are not applicable to the assessee.
Whether the amounts paid by the ONGC to the non-resident assessees /foreign companies for providing various services in connection with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil is chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under Section 44D read with Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act
Whether certain govt. agencies (ONGC) in agreement with foreign companies would entitle for the exemption of surtax under notification no. GSR 307 (E) dated 3.1983.
Assessee relied upon the assessment order of AY 2008-09 before CIT (A) in which the accounting to assessee was accepted by revenue. CIT (A) took cognizance of that order pertaining to AY 2008-09 and quantified net profit of assessee retail business @ 5%. ITAT also confirmed the order of CIT (A).
It is provided in section 124 (3) that no person shall entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of AO after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause
Notice u/s 143 (2) is a right of assessee to be heard before any income tax authority. Statutory notices are the first step to initiate any proceeding under income-tax act. Therefore, failure in issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) is enough to hold assessment bad-in-law.
