Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
From the Courts »
 Shri Sanjeev Gupta, City Hospital and Maternity Home, Nursing Home Site 2, Opp. Sagar Cinema, Sector 16, Faridabad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad.
 Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd, (earlier known as Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Gurgaon
 Ved Parkash Bharti, S/o. Shri Parmanand, H. No. 1049-50, Sector-13-17, HUDA, Panipat Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal
 Itochu Corporation, 5-1, Kita-Aoyama, 2 Chome, Minato-Ku Vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle 2(1)(1) New Delhi.
 No Tax applicable on Securities Premium even if used to set off losses: ITAT deletes addition against Hindustan Coca Cola
 Bertelsmann Marketing Services India Pvt. Ltd, 215, Second Floor, Suneja Tower-II, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi
 DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court)
 Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) New Delhi vs ACIT (Intl. Taxation), Circle 2(1)(2) Room NO. 310 3rd Floor, Block 2, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, New Delhi,
 Gunjan Garg, C/o. Raj Kumar & Associates CA, L-7A(LGF) South Exten. Part-II, New Delhi Vs. Pr. CIT-16, Room No. 101, Drum Shape Building, New Delhi
 SMT. SHANTI DEVI MERWAH, A-26, FIRST FLOOR, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI Vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI
 Tax department cannot block import export code (IEC): Bombay High Court
 Shri Rohtash Singh, L 32/5, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Gurgaon
 Shri Rohtash Singh, L 32/5, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle 2, Gurgaon
 Shri Satish Kumar, B 6/17, Main Wali Nagar, New Delhi vs ACIT, Circle 42(1), New Delhi.
 BMR Polymers (P) Ltd. Flat No. 42, Bank Apartments, Plot No. 22, Sector-4, Dwarka, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(3) Gurgaon, Haryana

SMT. SHANTI DEVI MERWAH, A-26, FIRST FLOOR, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI Vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI
November, 10th 2020

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi in relation to assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds:-

1. The Assessing Officer had passed an order u/s. 143(3)/147 dated 28.3.2013 raising a demand of Rs. 19,60,796/- on the asessee for ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 without serving any valid notice u/s. 148 on the assessee. Further, on filing the appeal against such order by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not paid the tax demand, without considering the fact that there was no valid Notice served on the assessee for carrying out the assessment consequent to which the assessment proceedings are void ab initio.

For more informatrion

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting