Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer has already examined the iss...
Income Tax : ITAT quashed PCIT’s Section 263 order, holding AO’s treatment of survey income as business income valid and not erroneous or p...
Income Tax : Ahmedabad ITAT quashes reassessments based on ACB report, ruling the AO lacked independent "reason to believe" and only used borro...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune upholds PCIT's order u/s 263, setting aside an assessment for failure to verify ₹82.64 crore in advances for property...
Income Tax : National Chamber of Industries & Commerce, U.P has made a representation against Indiscriminate notices by the Income Tax Depa...
Income Tax : KSCAA has made a Representation on Challenges in Income Tax Related to Rectification Proceedings, Order Giving Effect, Delay in P...
Income Tax : One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Re...
Income Tax : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted additions after finding the AO relied only on ACB information without independent inquiry or supporting evidence. ITA...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation....
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessmen...
ITAT Ahmedabad held that co-operative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act towards interest income earned from investment in other co-operative bank. Accordingly, deduction allowed and appeal by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance of claim under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act justified since assessee is engaged in only collection and transportation of solid wastes and is not engaged in operating and maintaining sold waste management system.
According to the PCIT the quantum of disallowance as per Rule 8D works out to 1,98,36,285/- as against which the AO made disallowance of Rs. 86,88,523/- which has resulted into under assessment of income.
Clause (ba) of sub-section (1) of section 12A was applicable for AY.2018-19 onwards and not for AY.2017-18, assessee-temple trust was entitled to tax exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 . Hence, the order of AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore, it was not amenable to revision u/s 263.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act empowers AO to pass penalty order by enhancing or reducing penalty on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to orders passed by appellate authority or courts.
The assessee herein is a part of Allana Group, which is engaged in the business of export of food products and agro commodities including frozen meat processed/frozen food, edible products, agro products etc.
The assessee has received Rs. 2,54,24,007/- as interest on enhanced compensation from HUDA after the compulsory acquisition of the agriculture land of the assessee, on which TDS @10% was also deducted.
PCIT was of the view that the export incentives and other income claimed by the assessee were not eligible for the exemption u/s. 10AA. PCIT was of the view that the assessee had claimed excess exemption under Section 10AA by a sum of Rs. 7,08,83,828.
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.
It is mainly contested that invocation of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act as there was no suppression of facts by the petitioners.
