According to Section 151(1) proviso if the Assessing Authority who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner want to reopen the ‘case after the expiry of 4 years unless the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of that notice. In the present case
The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee society does not possess registration under section 12A of the Act for relevant assessment year. From the perusal of return filed by it alongwith Form No.10B shows that it intended to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act
The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 2 crores on 20.5.1992 to Broker Shri.Pallav Sheth under portfolio management scheme. The said broker is supposed to manage the trading portfolio of shares and securities on behalf of the assessee.
ACIT Vs. Shri Jayantilal T. Jariwala (ITAT Ahmedabad)- In thie Case Assessing Officer found that assessee had constructed a residential house, B-3, Mamta Flats, Surat and plot No.158/21 GIDC, Pandesara, Surat. The AO was not satisfied with the cost of construction shown
M/s Ved Parkash Contractors Vs. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh) – It is true that the revisional authority itself has wide power to examine the case whether the decision has been erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and in exercise of these power modifications are permissible
The present appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the orders of CIT(A), Faridabad, dated 27.12.2011 and 20.12.2012 passed for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1321/Del/2012
Hari Om Sewa Dal Vs. CIT(Exemptions)-ITAT Delhi- We find from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) that the registration under Section 12AA of the Act was denied to the appellant society solely on the ground that the appellant society had been claiming
Quality BPO Services Pvt Ltd, Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Ahmedabad)- The issue under appeal relates to examination of the claim of assessee under section 10B of the Act at Rs.67,08,733/- which hitherto has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer and further sustained
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vishwanath Khanna vs. CCIT that as per section 293, no civil suit lies against the Income Tax Department with respect to any dues claimed from the Income Tax Department if such dues are/can be the subject matter of proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the purpose of transfer pricing is to benchmark transactions between related parties in order to discover the true price if such entities were unrelated.
