The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C.
Appellant contended that section 43D of the Act itself recognises recognition of taxability of such interest and that when a specific provision in the nature of section 43D of the Act has been made, and entities like the assessee are excluded from the purview thereof, the assessee cannot indirectly claim benefit which would amount to […]
This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 26.9.2001. Appeal was admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law.
This Tax Appeal is filed challenging the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.08.2006. The Tax Appeal has been taken up for consideration of following substantial questions of law: [A] “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of […]
In the instant case the impugned property was sold at a value lesser than the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty. Therefore the valuation determined for the purpose of stamp valuation is taken as sale consideration. However, such deeming provision cannot be applied to the provision of law as specified Section 54EC of […]
(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order date 23.4.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 1995- 96.
ITAT held that as the assessee had produced a certificate showing that it was registered as Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the provision of Co-operative Societies Act, therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2).
In ACIT Vs. M/s. Nokia Siemens Networks (P) Ltd, the Delhi ITAT held that assessee cannot be treated as Assessee- in- Default for Late payment of TDS due to system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end.
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment for A.Y 2008-2009 is sought to be reopen beyond the period of six years, solely on the directions issued by the learned CIT [A], which has been subsequently set-aside by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that otherwise, the re-assessment proceedings beyond six years is not permissible.
