The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in this case held that Tribunal has no power to review its own decision in the case of same assessee in earlier years
As you are aware Arbitration is one of the best Alternate Disputes Resolution process, which saves time, money and energy of the parties. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 no where prohibits deciding of cases through arbitration. But landlord-tenant
Hon’ble Tribunal in this case rightly held that company by virtue of being incorporated u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 has committed to the approving authorities under the parent legislation that its activities are for the promotion of its aforesai
In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following two questions have been referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T Act, 1961.
THE SUPREME COURT ON HELD THAT the reassessment notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on or after April 1, 2021, will not be deemed to be invalid just because they were issued under the old law.
In the case of Tata Education and Development Trust (Taxpayer), the Mumbai Tribunal held that the amount spent for charitable purposes outside India, which is approved by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), is allowable as qualifying applicatio
This appeal by the Department is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-2, Jaipur [Herein after referred to as ld. CIT(A) ]dated 10-12-2019 for the assessment year 2016-2017.]
Respectfully following the order of this Bench in the case of Sanjay Porwal vs CPC Bengaluru/ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur (supra), the disallowance made on account of employees contribution towards PF & ESI deposited before due date of filing of return of
AO has no power to start fresh assessment in a case ,in which Hon’ble Tribunal has set aside order of AO, unless specific directions has been given in the order setting aside by appellate authority.
This court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. The substantial question framed by this court while issuing notice is answered in the affirmative, that is, in