Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) HC observed that we are at a loss to understand as to why the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not communicated to the petitioner regarding fixing a specific date of hearing of a Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this […]
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court) The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner’s remedy was to […]
ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law.
Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi (West) Vs Rajesh Jindal (CGST Delhi) As already noted, not only there are serious allegations against the accused/ respondent of his having made fictitious sales of value of more than Rs. 200 crores and having consequently caused loss to the government of the GST evasion / wrongful availment of input […]
The terrace of the building cannot be considered as distinct and separate but certainly is a part of the house property. Therefore, letting-out space on the terrace of the house property for installation and operation of mobile tower / antenna certainly amounts to letting-out a part of the house property itself.
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) (Bombay High Court) While disposing of these Petitions with the above clarifications, we may note that these Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members […]
Validity of Reassessment Notice under section 148-Where approval of Addl. CIT was not obtained to reopen the assessment, rather it was obtained from CIT, the same was in breach of section 151.
Hence it would be an appropriate analogy that the entire amount which is liable to be treated as deemed dividend has to be apportioned between both the shareholders in whose cases the conditions stipulated for attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied. Therefore as pleaded by the Ld.AR, it would be judicious to make addition in the hands of Shri V. Ramesh an amount of Rs.26,84,902/- and Shri S. Ramu – Rs.26,84,901/-. It is ordered accordingly.
Shri Deepak Awatram Valecha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that six plots of agriculture land was bought by the assessee with eight other persons. These plots of land were held for lease by owner and thereafter sold and profit accruing there on was claimed as exempt being income from sale of […]
Pradeep Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act at the address D-60, Noida Authority, Sector-108, Noida. However, the assessment was framed by mentioning the address of the assessee as P-3, Shop No. LGF 20, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector-18, […]
