Assessee was engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities, financing and granting loans and advances against shares. The assessee earned exempt dividend income and made suo moto dis allowance against the same under section 14A.
It is unbelievable that a professional like Advocate, C.A. or Accountant, would open a bank account with his client. The Ld. D.R. rightly contended that any professional would open a bank account for an assessee if unaccounted transactions are conducted on behalf of the assessee.
Maheshbhai Shantibhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The taxability of undisclosed income detected in the course of search in the case of partnership firm where the assessee is a partner is in question. We shall first take a look into the second proposition raised on behalf of the assessee. On behalf of the assessee, it […]
M/s. Tamilnadu Brick Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Once registered GPA and JDA confers entitlement to developer to sell, convey or deed in any manner with 60% undivided share, etc., it would be construed nothing but transfer of property being land within meaning of section 2(47)(v). FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal filed […]
Tamilnadu Brick Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The plea of the assessee is that the reckoning of date of transfer should be based on the execution of MOA dated 30.01.2012. The execution of MOA alone does not convey transfer of the schedule property to the developer within the meaning of section 2(47(v) of the Act […]
When assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year, disallowance under section 14A could not be made.
HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Amritsar) The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as […]
Suresh Jugraj Mutha Vs Addl.CIT (ITAT Pune) Conclusion: It is outside the jurisdiction of AO converting the limited scrutiny case like the present one to the unlimited one without the approval of Administrative Commissioner of Income Tax. Facts – Assessee filed the return and the case was taken up for limited scrutiny for the purpose […]
M/s. Gulf Steel & Minerals Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) The AO is wrong in making the impugned addition on account of sundry creditor, which are related to purchases and the same also accepted by the AO as genuine. Without rejecting the purchases, the sundry creditors cannot be treated as income of assessee Therefore, addition made by […]
Shri B.S. Sanjay [HUF] Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the sale consideration as per sale deed is Rs. 59.40 Lakhs and the value adopted by DVO u/s. 50C (2) is Rs. 64,10,400/- and therefore, the difference between these two values is of Rs. 4,70,400/- which is less about 8% of the sale […]
