Nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law.
Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It undisputed fact that assessee has earned LTCG which was not offered to tax. It is also undisputed that the disclosure of the same made in balance-sheet of the assessee. Thus, we note that non- offering of LTCG to the tax was not deliberate. It was out […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its recent order ruled that no additions can be made since interest has accrued to the assessee but has not been realized.
Shri Nilesh Janardan Thakur Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The AOs case is that the assessee has received money without any consideration which is taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. The AO has brought out number of reasons to come to the conclusion that money is taxable u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. […]
M/S Veer Vardhman Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As AO has not passed the speaking order in disposing of the assessee ‘s objections against the notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, before proceeding with the assessment, hence subsequent assessment order is bad in law and deserving of being quashed. Full […]
Unless, a debt due by somebody has been created in favour of assessee, it cannot be said that he has acquired a right to receive the income or that income has accrued to him. An amount can accrue to assessee if he acquires a legally enforceable right to receive it from the debtor.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai bench recently pronounced that Export incentives are not Includable while computing eligible profits for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Linklaters Vs Dy. DIT (ITAT Mumbai) Though the lower authorities had rejected the claim of the assessee that it did not have any ‘PE’ during the period November, 2008 to March, 2009, and rather concluded that the assessee had a ‘PE’ in India during the year under consideration, however we find that no concrete reasoning […]
Bank of Baroda Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)-Levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) for the second month can arise only if the period of time between the date on which tax was deducted and the date on which tax was paid to the Government exceeds one month.
Where the assessee had earned interest on advance paid to contractors during pre- commencement period was found to be ‘inextricably linked’ to the setting up of the plant of the assessee and hence was held to be a capital receipt which was permitted to be set off against pre- operative expenses.
