Manish Manohardas Asrani Vs ITO Int Tax Ward (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled in favor of the assessee, Manish Manohardas Asrani, quashing a penalty of ₹44,90,048 levied under Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge—whether it pertained […]
ICAI Disciplinary Committee fined CA Rahul Gupta ₹50,000 for professional misconduct after finding his signatures on forged LLP documents.
Madras High Court held that petitioner being unaware of initiation of proceedings are directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections by treating impugned assessment order as show cause notice.
CA. Shikha Saini was reprimanded by the ICAI Disciplinary Committee for professional misconduct, including certifying company incorporation forms with missing documents.
ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
The appellant are that the assessee being a public charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that delay of three years in approaching Court without explaining sufficient cause for the delay is not justifiable. Also held that mere filing of representation is not sufficient cause to explain the delay. Thus, petition dismissed.
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
It is submitted that the specific request of the petitioner for furnishing the entirety of the statements made as also the seized material, has not been accepted in its entirety and only the portions of statements were made available which has prejudiced the petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
