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...
Pfizer Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The CBDT had issued Circular No.681 dated 8th March 1984 providing that a contract undertaken to supply any article or goods according to the specifications given by any person
In the case of Vofafone East Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT Kolkata Bench of ITAT observed the applicability of various provision of TDS where tax was not deducted on the roaming charges paid by the Appellant to its telecom operators.
In the case of Advance Netways Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hon’ble Bombay High Court denied to interfere in the order of CESTAT who directed to deposit 50 % of total duty payable and 10 % out of penalty payable.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Prem Castings Pvt. Ltd. ITAT, Delhi Bench reversed the order of CIT (A) who deleted addition of Rs. 3,46,00,000/- after relying upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) in which it was held that once the assessee has produced documents regarding
In the case of ACIT vs. OBC, Mumbai Bench of ITAT observed that the amount paid by the assessee bank (the lessee) to City Industrial Development Corporation (MMRDA) (Lessor) was in the nature of rent as defined u/s 194 I of the Act or not, which held yes by CIT (A).
In case of Unitech Ltd. Vs. UOI Hon’ble SC has set aside the order passed by Bombay HC in a writ petition filed by asseessee against the order under section 269UD. Hon’ble SC have held compulsory pre-emptive purchase illegal.
In case of DIT (E) Vs. M/s Jasubhai Foundation, BOmbay High Court upheld the decision of ITAT in which it was held that section 10 and section 11, though mentioned in same chapter, but conditions mentioned in both sections are mutually exclusive from each other.
ITAT Delhi held in case of ACIT Vs. PTC Industries Ltd. ITAT held that when expenditure claimed is genuine then penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be levied. ITAT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC) wherein it was held that merely because of the assessee’s claim
CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (Bombay High Court) The three grounds which have been projected and emphasised pertain to treatment of total income as income from house property and allowing deduction under section 24 ignoring the fact that the income was received from the business asset (unsold flats) shown as closing stock.
ACIT Vs. Menzies Aviation Bobba (Banglore) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Banglore) Revenue filed above appeal against the order of CIT (A) who held that BIAL is statutory body as per requirement of section 80IA (4) (i) of the Income-tax Act.
