Income Tax : Supreme Court clarifies Section 80HHC deduction for Export-Oriented Units, emphasizing that profits eligible for deduction must be...
Income Tax : In the last quarter of the financial year 2000-0 1, a serious controversy arose in the Income-Tax Department and export circles of...
Income Tax : In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpre...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that interest on bank deposits from operational funds of a co-operative credit society is eligible for deducti...
Income Tax : Tribunal directed allocation of common head-office expenses (and common income) to eligible industrial undertakings when computing...
Income Tax : The High Court ruled that sales tax exemption retained by an industrial unit was capital in nature because it was granted to encou...
Income Tax : The Court held that losses already set off in earlier years cannot be notionally carried forward for computing deduction under Sec...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore held that at the relevant time co-founder of Flipkart stayed in India for 141 days and balance days in other countr...
Madras High Court affirms that Section 80HHC deduction is granted without reducing Section 80IB benefit, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Gujarat High Court upholds ITAT’s deletion of ₹70 lakh unexplained cash credit, ruling against double taxation of export sales. Clarification on Section 80HHC given.
Supreme Court ruled on how deductions under Section 80-IA and 80-HHC are to be calculated, clarifying impact of Section 80-IA(9) and rejecting a retrospective application.
Gujarat HC rules in CIT vs Mitesh Impex that new tax deduction claims (80IB/80HHC) can be made at appeal stage without a revised return, distinguishing Goetze.
Gujarat High Court rules write-back of provisions isn’t ‘turnover’ or ‘gross receipts’ under Sec 44AB, quashing tax return invalidation. Cites ICAI notes.
It was held that in the original assessment under Section 143(1), the issue related to the deed of purchase of land was not looked into as the same was not reported in the assessee’s income before the Revenue.
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.
The stand of the assessee was that it was not necessary that loss of one industrial undertaking should necessarily be adjusted against the profit of another eligible industrial undertaking.
The AO added excise duty and sales tax to the total turnover while excluding lease rent and other incomes, categorizing them as “Income from Other Sources” rather than “Business Income”.
ITAT Jaipur held that in case the books of accounts are rejected by applying provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act then assessment must be completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act which is not done by AO in the present case.
