- Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
Recent posts
#81
Collection of important & evergreen judgements, circulars, articles etc / Reference to Finance Bill
Last post by Neelam Jadhav - November 14, 2018, 06:08:39 PMReference to Finance Bills, Finance Acts, Circulars explaining the provisions from 1936 to 2018
By
Neelam Jadhav, Advocate
(KSA Legal Chambers)
By
Neelam Jadhav, Advocate
(KSA Legal Chambers)
Introduction
The citations mentioned herein give the details of every finance Act and amendments, which have been reported in the ITR Journals, are very important. Hence, in this publication, an attempt has been made to give reference of the citations from the year 1936 till the year 2018
Click below link to see the details
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rIx1ORVN300lJaSgFk_esKx0DgoOHtkh
#82
Collection of important & evergreen judgements, circulars, articles etc / Thread of important judgements...
Last post by admin - November 05, 2018, 03:53:10 PMS. 250/ 254: If a decision is challenged by the assessee both on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits, the appellate authority has to decide both issues. He cannot decline to decide one of the issues on the basis that the decision on the other issue renders it academic. This approach leads to multiplication of proceedings and leads to delay
I.T.A. No.6098/Mum/2016
Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), M/s. Mohanraj Trading & Exchange
following CIT vs Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 (Mad)
http://itatonline.org/archives/ito-vs-mohanraj-trading-exchange-itat-mumbai-s-250-254-if-a-decision-is-challenged-by-the-assessee-both-on-the-issue-of-jurisdiction-as-well-as-on-merits-the-appellate-authority-cannot-decline-to/
I.T.A. No.6098/Mum/2016
Income Tax Officer-12(3)(4), M/s. Mohanraj Trading & Exchange
following CIT vs Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 (Mad)
http://itatonline.org/archives/ito-vs-mohanraj-trading-exchange-itat-mumbai-s-250-254-if-a-decision-is-challenged-by-the-assessee-both-on-the-issue-of-jurisdiction-as-well-as-on-merits-the-appellate-authority-cannot-decline-to/
#83
Discussion / A Remarkable Case where a Repu...
Last post by Shakunca - October 30, 2018, 03:51:30 PMPlease find an Analysis of Karnataka High Court's Verdict in case of Wipro Ltd at this link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/surprising-case-where-reputed-company-created-capital-nilesh/?published=t
#84
Discussion / Department successfully invoke...
Last post by Shakunca - October 16, 2018, 01:05:20 PMIn case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd the NCLT has rejected a Scheme of Merger relying, among other things, on the Incxome-Tax Department's claim that GAAR was applicable. Please find a comprehensive analysis at this link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/even-before-starter-fires-starting-gun-income-tax-nilesh/
#85
Discussion / IDS 2016 and Double taxation -...
Last post by rajul5234 - September 14, 2018, 03:51:55 PMM/s. M R Shah logistrics Guj HC SCA 21028/2017 Dt. 14/08/18
Held that reopening in company not maintainable for amount accepted in IDS 2016 in case of share applicant.
R K Patel
Held that reopening in company not maintainable for amount accepted in IDS 2016 in case of share applicant.
R K Patel
#86
Discussion / Writ against Tribunal
Last post by rajul5234 - September 14, 2018, 03:47:46 PMShambhubhai Mahadev Ahir. SCA 6337/2018. 20/8/18 Guj HC
Tribunal has no jurisdiction u/s 254(2) to allow MA when fundamental error is absent in order of appeal.
R K Patel
Tribunal has no jurisdiction u/s 254(2) to allow MA when fundamental error is absent in order of appeal.
R K Patel
#87
Discussion / IDS 2016
Last post by rajul5234 - September 14, 2018, 03:44:14 PMSCA 2497 / 2018. Nareshkumar Bisweshwar Agrawal . 21/8/18. Gujarat HC
IDS 2016 and board powers explained in context of mistake of short payment of tax installment.
R K Patel
IDS 2016 and board powers explained in context of mistake of short payment of tax installment.
R K Patel
#88
Discussion / Time limit for section 143(2) ...
Last post by sujittalukder - August 29, 2018, 07:16:51 PMDear experts,
I have a query on the time limit for section 143(2) in case of defective return.
In a case return in ITR-6 (company assessee) was filed on 27.09.2016 for AY 2016-17.
CPC issued notices u/s 139(9) two times pointing out some defects before finally processing the ITR u/s 143(1). The assessee finally uploaded correct return after curing the defect on 27.11.17. The return was processed in Jan 2018 and refund was issued by CPC.
Now in August 2018, notice u/s 143(2) for the AY 2016-17 was issued by the AO. The notice is system generated and gives the reference to the 'return filed on 27.11.2017'.
Now under the circumstances, whether the notice issued in August 2018 is valid or not? Because normally, the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2017.
Please guide.
I have a query on the time limit for section 143(2) in case of defective return.
In a case return in ITR-6 (company assessee) was filed on 27.09.2016 for AY 2016-17.
CPC issued notices u/s 139(9) two times pointing out some defects before finally processing the ITR u/s 143(1). The assessee finally uploaded correct return after curing the defect on 27.11.17. The return was processed in Jan 2018 and refund was issued by CPC.
Now in August 2018, notice u/s 143(2) for the AY 2016-17 was issued by the AO. The notice is system generated and gives the reference to the 'return filed on 27.11.2017'.
Now under the circumstances, whether the notice issued in August 2018 is valid or not? Because normally, the time limit for issuing the notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 30.09.2017.
Please guide.
#89
Discussion / investment allowance
Last post by ketanvyas1975 - August 10, 2018, 12:32:23 PMDear friends,
One assessee failed to claim investment allowance in the return for A.Y. 2016-17 though he was eligible for it. Now what he should do? I could think of following options:
(1) The time limit for revised return is over. However, he can take the remedy of filing revised return alongwith condonation of delay u/s 119 of the Income Tax Act.
(2) He can apply u/s 264 to CIT for revision of intimation u/s 143(1). However, i feel that there will be technical hurdles here as the assessee has failed to claim the investment allowance in the return of income.
What is the better alternative? Is there any other alternative available? The case of the assessee for A.y. 2016-17 has not been selected for scrutiny.
Please share your valuable views.
One assessee failed to claim investment allowance in the return for A.Y. 2016-17 though he was eligible for it. Now what he should do? I could think of following options:
(1) The time limit for revised return is over. However, he can take the remedy of filing revised return alongwith condonation of delay u/s 119 of the Income Tax Act.
(2) He can apply u/s 264 to CIT for revision of intimation u/s 143(1). However, i feel that there will be technical hurdles here as the assessee has failed to claim the investment allowance in the return of income.
What is the better alternative? Is there any other alternative available? The case of the assessee for A.y. 2016-17 has not been selected for scrutiny.
Please share your valuable views.
#90
Discussion / Re: housing loan interest
Last post by ethanscott - July 25, 2018, 02:45:38 PMIn this case, it would be exempted.