Category: Judgments
Adverse view taken on evidence without opportunity to cross-examine It is settled proposition of law that whenever the AO intends to take adverse view against the assessee on the basis of any evidence, he is required to confront the same to the assessee and if the assessee desires, he …
CIT Appeals wrong in rejecting appeal for non payment of tax when assessee paid tax on admitted return of income and revised return not accepted – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 985 2016 (08) ITAT AY: 2007-08 Date/Month of Judgment: August 2016 Brief Facts of the Case: The …
Rent held Business Income not House Property income When the the assessee company had only one business and that is of leasing its property and earning rent therefrom, the income so earned should be treated as its business income and not as income from house property-Supreme Court ABCAUS Case …
Penalty 271(1)(c) can not be imposed when High Court admits substantial question of law on quantum addition making apparent that addition is debatable – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 982 2016 (08) ITAT Assessment Year: 2005-06 Date/Month of Judgment: August 2016 Brief Facts of the Case: During the …
Penalty 271(1)(c) for claiming STCG as LTCG and deduction us 54F quashed by the ITAT holding that if the assessee had not concealed any fact while filing the return and filed the copies of the document along with the return, merely because the sale proceeds were shown as a long term capital gain …
Penalty us 271FA for late filing AIR Return quashed by ITAT considering that the tax laws of the country are complex and complicated and require assistance of specialised tax practitioners. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 980 2016 (08) ITAT Date/Month of Judgment: August 2016 Important Judgments relied by the assessee: Motilal …
Company name struck off by ROC us 560 restored by Delhi High Court for want of notice u/s  560(1)(2) and non opportunity of being heard u/s 560(5) observing that the object of section 560(6) of the Companies Act was to give a chance to the company. ABCAUS Case Law …
Appointments of advocates on Income Tax panel not equitable and without consideration of the issue of law involved visavis the experience of the Advocate – Bombay High Court Case Law : ITA No. 2287/2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) vs. M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt.Ltd (Respondent) Date of Judgment: 12th July 2016 …
Additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) on Capital Work in Progress converted into plant and machinery during the year is allowable – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 976 2016 (07) ITAT Assessment Year: 2006-07 Date/Month of Judgment/Order: July 2016 Important Judgments Cited: JCIT vs. Lotus Energy (India) Ltd. 68 taxmann.com …
Forming opinion on the basis of information received by Investigation wing does not amount to satisfaction of the AO to reopen the case u/s 147 – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 975 2016 (07) ITAT Assessment Year: 2004-05 Date/Month of Judgment: July 2016 Important Case Laws/Judgments  Cited: Pr. …
