Where assessee had already paid income-tax on the amount surrendered during the course of survey, it could not be said that the surrendered income was not voluntary and the assessee wanted to conceal the income, therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Reopening of assessment beyond four years merely on the basis of information received, however, without pointing out failure of assessee to furnish truly and fully all material facts was not valid.
Where valid search was not conducted at assessee’s business premises then until and unless AO assumes valid jurisdiction under section 153A, assessment, therefore, made in consequence of notice issued under section 153A, was invalid and void ab initio.
Lupin Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) HC observed that we are at a loss to understand as to why the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not communicated to the petitioner regarding fixing a specific date of hearing of a Miscellaneous Application invoking Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this […]
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court) The Department in the Assessment Order expressly refers to this Court’s earlier order in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.721 of 1988. Still it makes no order of refund. If this is an erroneous order and the Department failed to rectify it, then, the petitioner’s remedy was to […]
ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law.
The terrace of the building cannot be considered as distinct and separate but certainly is a part of the house property. Therefore, letting-out space on the terrace of the house property for installation and operation of mobile tower / antenna certainly amounts to letting-out a part of the house property itself.
Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) (Bombay High Court) While disposing of these Petitions with the above clarifications, we may note that these Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members […]
Validity of Reassessment Notice under section 148-Where approval of Addl. CIT was not obtained to reopen the assessment, rather it was obtained from CIT, the same was in breach of section 151.
Shri Deepak Awatram Valecha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that six plots of agriculture land was bought by the assessee with eight other persons. These plots of land were held for lease by owner and thereafter sold and profit accruing there on was claimed as exempt being income from sale of […]
