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 : The dispute concerned whether deduction under Section 80IB should be reduced by the amount already allowed under Section 80HHC. IT...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before cal...
Income Tax : The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening foun...
Income Tax : The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated after four years without fresh evidence. The court held such reopening inval...
Income Tax : The court held that electricity tariff for determining market value must include all components, including duty. It ruled that exc...
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.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
ITAT Nagpur held that once the return of income has been filed belatedly, no benefit under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act is allowed. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 80IA disallowed.
The assessee is a co–operative credit society, registered under Maharashtra co–operative society Act, 1960 and is engaged in providing credit facilities to those CIDCO employees who are members of credit society.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation received by the assessee in out of court settlement for unilaterally terminating certain obligation under the agreement is an income assessed to business income and not an income assessed to capital gains as claimed by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus on redemption of treasury bills is taxable under the head Capital Gains and not under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business’.
