Category: Judgments
Deduction u/s 80IA is mandatory for both assessee and revenue to allow/claim, once initial assessment year is selected as there is no choice for postponement – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2711 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: CIT Vs. Ramco International reported in 221 …
Penalty proceedings u/s 271D without recording satisfaction in the assessment order held to be illegal following Supreme Court judgment ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2710 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:CIT Vs. Saini Medical Store, 277 ITR 420 (P&H)CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Goes, 315 ITR 163 (P&H)CIT …
Addition u/s 69C for unexplained marriage expenses deleted by ITAT noting that in Indian society, family members contribute to wedding in family ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2709 (2019) (01) ITAT The assessee had appealed against the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the …
Restriction that Auditor can not be an accountant to value FMV u/s 56 as provided in Rule 11UA is well founded – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2708 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:M/s. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 172 ITD 629Rameshwaram Strong Glass (P) …
Non-issue of Form 16 by employer-High Court asks Department to penalise defaulters u/s 405 of IPC and publish list of defaulters ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2707 (2019) (01) HC Under the provisions of section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Rule 31,every employer …
Settlement Commission order not perverse when every objection raised by the Commissioner, Income Tax as regarding non-disclosure by the assessee is well discussed – HC ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2706 (2019) (01) HC The Income Tax Department had filed the instant writ petitioner objecting to the order …
When entire investment/payments for flat purchase was made by the assessee in the name of his daughter, the capital gain was liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2705 (2019) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Sanjeev Lal v. …
Gypsum board is covered in amended Entry 56 Schedule IV of RVAT, read as ‘gypsum in all its forms’-Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2704 (2019) (01) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai v. India Gypsum Ltd. Trutuf Safety Glass Industries v. …
Merely because some of vouchers did not bear the truck number or driver’s name the transport expenses was not ingenuine – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2703 (2019) (01) ITAT The appellant assessee, a Govt. contractor, was aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the lump …
Higher Court cannot stay /quash orders in anticipation of being passed by an appellate authority. Supreme Court quashes High Court direction ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2702 (2019) (01) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:Awani Kumar Upadhyay vs. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 392 An FIR was registered by the State Excise Department …