The respondent/writ petitioner had approached the writ court impugning order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax rejecting the application filed by the respondent u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to CIT(A) since CIT(A) failed to examined the validity of jurisdiction under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Telangana High Court held that initiation of criminal proceedings under Criminal Procedure, 1973 against petitioner not justified since petitioner was not director of the company which got liquidated prior to filing of the appeal.
ITAT Kolkata held that since filing of Form 67 is procedural in nature, delay in filing of the same cannot be the reason for denial of relief under section 90 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) rightly allowed interest earned from a co-operative bank as eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that no incriminating material found during course of search and assessment is completed during date of search hence addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
Assessee argued that AO lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 as the information derived from the search should had been assessed under Section 153C.
The goods were re-exported in April 2005 after Customs clearance. Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice alleging non compliance with Notification No.158/95 and demanded duties and interest.
Tribunal was justified in declining capital gain exemption under Section 54F with respect to a property described as “makaan” (house) in the registered sale deed but in reality having a brick kiln construction.
Assessee-trust was in distinct social activities in community welfare and development. It had received an SCN in Form-REG-31 regarding the cancellation of GST registration.
