Sh. Ritesh Kumar Khandelwal Vs Forever Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (NAA) Authority finds that the allotment of units, agreements, booking, construction activity and receipt of payments had taken place in the post-GST era. The draw of lots for allotment of houses was conducted on 05.07.2017 in the presence of the committee constituted under the Affordable Housing […]
ITAT held that the absence of service of notice u/s 148/143(2) of the Act, reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act will be null and void.
Padagouda Hanamanthgouda Patil Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT noticed that assessee has filed his return of income on 15.10.2018. However, it is the submission of the assessee that the GST amount cited above was paid on 16.10.2018. Hence by the time, the return of income was filed, the assessee has not paid the GST amount […]
Barapur Gramodyog Vikas Samiti Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The AO while completing the assessment noticed that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(23B) of the Act as the assessee was engaged in the business of production, sale, etc. of Khadi and Products of Village Industries. The AO was of the view that in view of proviso […]
Vishnu Kumar Sinha (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur) In this case CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issue which did arise from the impugned order and has been assailed by the assessee before him. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the manner […]
Clean Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order as well as the assessment order, it would reveal that the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income […]
The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.
RMA & Associates Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi) The appellant was engaged in providing chartered accountant services. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding the non-payment of service tax on the amount representing reimbursement of expenses like conveyance, travelling and mobile expenses. The issue, in respect of reimbursable expenses has been […]
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
Bharat Rana Chaudhry Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that sub-clause (iii) of section 271(l)(c) provides mechanism for quantification of penalty. It contemplates that the assessee would be directed to pay a sum in addition to taxes, if any, payable him, which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the […]
