AO without going through the terms and conditions of each of the project that had been undertaken by assessee during the year had come to the conclusion that assessee was a works contractor and not a developer.
The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between a bank guarantee and a contract of indemnity in State Bank of India vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana case.
Reassessment initiated under an invalid notice issued under Section 148 as there was no new material with AO after four years that the assessee had escaped assessment, therefore, additions amounting to ₹6.93 crores was deleted.
It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the authority issuing the notice dated 23.06.2024 is a prescribed income-tax authority, he cannot issue a notice but can merely serve a notice.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that PFRDA Act, 2013 doesn’t prescribed any due date for payment of employee’s contribution to National Pension Scheme (NPS). Thus, since payment is made before filing return u/s. 139(1), the same is allowable u/s. 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The disallowance occurred due to an incorrect entry in the ITR, and the matter should be reassessed, taking into account the correct disclosure of the loss.
The evidences relied upon by AO in the form of excel sheets did not constitute adequate evidence to draw adverse inference against tassessee, in the absence of any other corroborative evidences.
Since cooperative banks were considered cooperative societies for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d), thereby making assessee’s interest and dividend income eligible for deduction.
Assessee was a private limited company registered as a non-banking finance company (NBFC) with the RBI, engaged in providing loans, advances, and dealing in shares and securities.
The present Company petition is filed on 27/07/2023, under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, r/w. Rule 6 of the I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, by JANUS GBAC LIMITED.
