Section 111 and Section 112 are attracted only when the goods are held to be liable for ‘confiscation’ when they are ‘improperly imported goods’.
ITAT held that A transaction of purchase and a transaction of sale are two different transactions in two opposite directions. If the allegation is that bogus purchases were made and the reply given thereof is that no such purchases were made, but in fact it was a sale by the assessee, it was for the Income Tax officials to apply their own mind on the reply given by the petitioner.
HC was not satisfied with cryptic unreasoned order three line order Passed by AO and Therefore, quashed and set aside the assessment order
Pradeep Kumar Varshney Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in the present case notice under Section 148A is not warranted as it is a case of Section 153C of the Act to which proviso (c) of Section 148A applies. In response to a pointed query, Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned […]
Rohan Pereria Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal raised through various grounds of appeal relates to the allowance of expenditure claimed as development expenditure on sale of land situated at Baner, Pune while computing the capital gains on the sale of said land. On careful perusal of the order of the […]
Jagubhai Chhaganbhai Patel Vs I.T.O (ITAT Surat) In this cases in quantum appeals assessee was granted substantial relief in deleting major part of additions and only part of capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld […]
Bhalchandra Educational Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Lucknow) CBDT vide Circular No. 7/2018 dated 20/12/2018 has issued directions for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing of Form 10 and Form 9A for assessment year 2016-17. The analysis of directions of CBDT vide this circular reveals that since assessment year 2016-17 was the […]
Hiralaxmi Ishwarlal Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT noted that the assessee already disclosed the bogus long term capital gain claim on sale of penny stock shares under income disclosure scheme. The sum so disclosed was Rs. 16,20,156/-. The cost of these shares was Rs. 30,673/- which was a component of the total sale proceeds […]
Goel Road Carriers Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) HC noted the fact that refund has been adjusted against the outstanding tax demand by the Authority without following the due procedure prescribed under Section 245 inasmuch as no notice or opportunity of pre-decisional hearing had been provided to the petitioner prior to such adjustment […]
Rajesh Vitthal Badade Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune) It is found as an admitted position that the AO recorded statement of Mr. Sampat G. Mandhare and Mrs. Dropadabai Fakirrao Harpale, who had given sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh and Rs.7.00 lakh respectively to the assessee as advance for purchase of the land. Here it is relevant […]
