Many cases are coming to the courts where the legitimacy of the search and seizure is challenged. It is being continuously held in cases coming to the courts that before a search, conditions mentioned in section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) should be fulfilled.
In Principal Commissioner of Income tax v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court held that re-assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of IT Department.
In P.G Sunandamma Vs. ITO, the ITAT, Bangalore, held that the transfer of excise license to a member of HUF on death of Karta cannot be reason to assess HUFs income in the hands of that individual member.
Assessee is entitled for interest under section 244A of the Act on the unpaid interest and the unpaid interest partakes of the character of the principal amount due to the assessee as section 244A of the Act states any amount due to the assessee.
he issue raised by the AO in proceeding under section 154 of the Act is highly debatable and requires the issue to be reconsidered by the AO about applicability of provision of section 115JB of the Act which was not raised by the AO in the original assessment proceeding. Therefore AO has no power to […]
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on the basis of the provisional accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant but did not file the audited accounts. The AO, therefore, issued a notice u/s 271D for levy of penalty for non filing of the audit report. The assessee explained […]
Salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign going ship (with Indian flag or foreign flag) shall not be included in the total income merely because the said salary has been credited in the NRE account maintained with an Indian bank by the seafarer.
During the course of appellate proceedings, the representative of the assessee submitted that the expenditure towards proportionate compensation of Rs. 79,36,350/- is allowable u/s. 48(1) of the Act, as upon succession of the impugned property, the assessee had paid the compensation as per the document submitted. The representative averred that where the assessee’s ancestors create […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the leading case, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
Transfer Pricing : Impact of delayed associated enterprise receivables subsumed in working capital adjustment made by the assessee company. Delhi High Court confirms ITAT’s deletion of notional interest adjustment on delayed AE-receivables.
