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 ITAT decided in this matter that reopening without application of mind is liable to quash and also elaborate that examination of facts and information received is necessary before reopening. In addition to this legal ground ITAT also heard the appeal on merits
CIT Vs. M/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In this case Hon’ble Court considered question of law that whether claim for set off of unabsorbed business loss which was brought forward in subsequent AY against the profit of section 10 A is allowable or not.
DCIT VS. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (ITAT MUMBAI) The assessee was entitled to get subsidy @3% from the state government. As per the agreement with WB it was decided that it would get higher subsidy i.e. 4.5 %.
JCIT Vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the above group cases search was conducted and assessments were framed u/s 153A/143 (3). The search was conducted on 21.03.2007 and concluded on 22.03.2007. Hence last of the authorisation of search u/s 132 was executed on 22.03.2007.
CIT Vs. Five Vision Promotors Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- AO made addition on account of share application money u/s 68 which was confirmed by the CIT. On appeal ITAT held that assessee has proved identity, genuineness & creditworthiness of the investors.
New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. ACIT- Bench of ITAT Delhi reversed the order passed by CIT (A) in which he confirmed the reassessment order after the lapse of four year when no new facts was revealed by the AO.
DCIT (TDS) Vs. Punjab Infratructure & Development Board, Chandigarh (ITAT Chandigarh)- When payee or resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income
In the case of Taxmann Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Casansaar Web Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Honble Delhi HC granted ad interim injunction and restrained the defendant from continuing with the infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in its editorial comments/case head notes.
In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, assessee was required to deduct tax and has deducted TDS @ 2% of sum paid/credited to GETCO Ltd. but due to filing of wrong PAN of deductee it has been deemed as assessee in default and accordingly 18% of remaining
Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (P&H HC) A reading of the orders of the TPO, the DRP and of the Tribunal makes it clear that one of the main reasons for not accepting the assessee’s case was that the assessee had not been able to substantiate that the payment for the services had actually increased its profits.
