The use of word “May” in section 68 should be distinguished from the word “Shall”
The use of word “May” in section 68 should be distinguished from the word “Shall” Supreme court in the case…
Ernakulam vs P.K. Noorjahan
Recent Posts
- AI Basee unverified Submission – Bombay High court imposes costs – A wake-up call for professionals
- The Dangerous Habit of Ignoring Income Tax Emails and SMS – And How It Quietly Backfires
- Capital Gain Exemption under Section 54 Available Even When New House Is Purchased with Housing Loan – ITAT Kolkata in Amit Parekh Case
- When “Irrevocable” Becomes a New Roadblock for charitable trust: An Unnecessary Hurdle for Charitable Trusts
- Delay in Filing Form 10B is Procedural – Substantive Exemption under Section 11 Cannot Be Denied on Technical Grounds
- Survey Statement u/s 133A Has No Evidentiary Value – Additions Quashed
- Income has escaped assessment is a pre-condition for re-opening the assessment and not a borrowed satisfaction from outside source
- Section 119(2)(b) Condonation of Delay: Who Has the Power to Grant Relief for Refunds and Section 80P Claims?
- Loans repaid in the subsequent assessment years – No addition u/s 68 can be made: ITAT Gauhati
- Section 269SS Not Attracted to One-Time Cash Sale Consideration: ITAT Chandigarh Clarifies the Law
