Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
Supreme Court clarifies the principles of retrospective taxation in CIT Vs Vatika Township, addressing the application of Section 113 of the Income Tax Act.
NCLT Mumbai held that sale of property of personal guarantors by financial creditor under SARFAESI Act during protection of moratorium under section 96 of the IBC is invalid sale as protection of moratorium under section 96 is far greater than of section 14.
The Surat Bench of ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purpose which means that ITAT uphold the decision of CIT (A) but without any real impact on the case. It allowed TDS credit of the of Rs.4,50,000/- but in AY 2018-19 whereas it was claimed in AY 2016-17.
During the course of survey proceedings, the statement of one of the partners of the firm Mr. Zinu, was recorded, who had stated that he earns commission @ 5.5% from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji for supply of manpower.
This appeal arises from an order dated 09.01.2024 by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench-I. The Appellant, Mr. Puneet P. Bhatia, a suspended director of Barracks Retail India Pvt. Ltd.
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.
ITAT Delhi held that interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act is leviable from the first date immediately following the due date till the date of full discharge of entire tax liability. Interest u/s. 234A has no relevance of date of filing of ITR.
The assessee-company incorporated u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 claiming to be for charitable purpose, applied to CPC for grant of provisional registration u/s 12AB and provisional approval u/s 80G, which were granted by CPC.
After the receipt of intimation, the assessee found mistake in the Tax Audit Report in which the Tax Auditor has mistakenly filled the due date of payment in column of actual date of payment and vice-versa.
