Income Tax : The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd struck dow...
Income Tax : A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay pr...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribu...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the fili...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act without issuance of notice under sectio...
Income Tax : ACIT (OSD) Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi): Subsequent judgment reversing earlier Legal Interpretation, cannot ...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment framed u/s. 148A(d) without application of mind and without controverting the expla...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without disposing the objections raised by the as...
Delhi High Court held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act refrains from incorporating a specific provision permitting the filing of a cross-objection. Thus, cross objection would not be maintainable.
ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is invalid and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
ACIT (OSD) Vs G4S Facility Services (India) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi): Subsequent judgment reversing earlier Legal Interpretation, cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record, requiring exercise of powers u/s 254(2) for recall of order
ITAT Kolkata held that reopening of assessment framed u/s. 148A(d) without application of mind and without controverting the explanation of the assessee is bad in law and is accordingly being quashed. Thus, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act without disposing the objections raised by the assessee is not sustainable being without jurisdiction. Accordingly, reassessment notice u/s. 148 set aside.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order passed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act read with first proviso below explanation 1 is barred by limitation. Accordingly, petition succeeds.
ITAT passed ex-parte order in absence of assessee and held that any assessment, whether it be first round or otherwise framed under section 153A without getting approval under section 153D of Act, is not sustainable in law.
The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Coopertief U.A (Netherlands). The return of the petitioner was picked up for scrutiny.
ITAT Kolkata held that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by AO not having valid jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, assessment proceeding based on an invalid notice is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
