Kheer Bhawani Trading P. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) On behalf of the assessee it was submitted that assessee had merely issued preferential shares and as for the purpose of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the Rule 11UA (2) is not applicable. It was submitted that assessee has issued preferential shares and the valuation under […]
Bank of Baroda (w.r.t E-Dena Bank) Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Pr.CIT held that the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the grounds that A.O has not verified the claim of deduction of the assessee pertaining to amortization of […]
Paras Nath Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Patna) Main grievance of the assessee is disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs. 25,74,023/- being the expenditure incurred in respect of freight and carriage. On this specific issue from the perusal of assessment order passed by the AO and it was come to our notice that he had categorically […]
Delay cannot be condoned as Assessee could not file any evidences as to how Assessee’s Counsel was preoccupied in his professional commitments for 649 days.
Tax Audit Report is a vital piece of evidence which goes to very root of matter and should be admitted for furtherance of cause of justice.
Reetesh Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Bench observed that both the lower authorities had dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for want of non-appearance during the course of hearing. In view of the request of the ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO […]
We are of the view that proper service of notice is vital for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b). In this regard, we draw reliance in case of CIT vs. Har Parshad (1990) 49 Taxman 168 (P&H).
Every assessee has a right to appeal before the authorities against any addition or disallowance made to the returned income, at the same time, it is least expected that the assessee would comply to the notices issued by the authorities in an appropriate way.
Respondents have grossly failed in their duty in law in not passing the appeal effect orders and issuing refund as per Section 153(5) of the Act and their action of withholding the refund is ex facie contrary to and in contempt of Article 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Scheme for Financial Support for Project Development Expenses of PPP Projects – ‘IIPDF Scheme’ (India Infrastructure Project Development Fund Scheme) Notified on 03.11.2022 The Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, notifies Scheme for Financial Support for Project Development Expenses of PPP Projects – India Infrastructure Project Development Fund Scheme (IIPDF Scheme) on […]
