The Jaipur bench of ITAT comprising Vijay Pal Rao (judicial member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (accountant member) recently held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) restricting amenities to doctors is
Vinita Ranka Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the bank transactions including the deposit in the bank and outward transaction are more than Rs. 4 Crores. The assessee then filed revised computation of income and admitted the turnover of more than Rs. […]
The New Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on yesterday ruled that the amount received as subsidy from the State Government under Capital Investment subsidy is not taxable under the Income Tax Act as it is capital in nature.
Section 273B of the Act provides that in case of a reasonable cause, penalty otherwise exigible, inter alia, u/s 271C of the Act, cannot be imposed.
We are of the view that in the absence of any direct nexus between expenditure claim to the exempt income, the assessing officer cannot invoke the provisions of section 14A row with rule 8D(2) to disallow expenditure.
Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee.
ITAT Delhi, last week held that the transaction of making payment of Rs. 95,50,31,150/- (on account of arbitral award) by Hyundai Rotem Company to the DMRC made on behalf of its AE would not part of the margin calculation to be added to revenue and cost for bench marking the international transaction.
Pr CIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who […]
Assessing Officer expected the assessee to disclose, and which were necessary for his assessment but not disclosed. Therefore, factually speaking, we find enough weight in the plea canvassed that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts as required by the proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act and thus, in our view, the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was vitiated.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act without jurisdiction when documents seized not belonged to the assessee is invalid.
