ITAT Delhi, last week held that the transaction of making payment of Rs. 95,50,31,150/- (on account of arbitral award) by Hyundai Rotem Company to the DMRC made on behalf of its AE would not part of the margin calculation to be added to revenue and cost for bench marking the international transaction.
Assessing Officer expected the assessee to disclose, and which were necessary for his assessment but not disclosed. Therefore, factually speaking, we find enough weight in the plea canvassed that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts as required by the proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act and thus, in our view, the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was vitiated.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act without jurisdiction when documents seized not belonged to the assessee is invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad clarifies Section 54: Exemption on capital gains for new property. Extended filing, capital gain scheme explained. Case details.
The ld.counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue authorities took us through section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and pointed out that as per sub-section (2) of section 159 notice upon legal heirs ought to have been issued by the AO, which the AO has failed to do so, and therefore, the assessment order is a nullity and deserves to be quashed.
Agra ITAT has remitted the file back to the CIT(Appeals) as CIT (Appeals) had just sustained Assessing Officer’s order without himself discussing or deciding the merits of the case.
Mr. Hasmukh I. Gandhi Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case Information was received by CBDT from German Authorities about bank account held by a trust named as Manichi Trust where economically beneficial ownership of the assets is of the appellant and his family members. Specific details such as date of birth, residential address, […]
The fact of the second sale was denied and the same arguments were put forth, namely that (i) the assessee had no knowledge of the second deal and (ii) the purchasers of the property Kanekleta Umengbhai Thakker and Umangbhai HiralalThakker had filed affidavits stating that they paid only Rs.3.70 crores and that the sale deed of Rs. 1.37 crores was executed by mistake.
When assessee failed to file any reliable evidence or documents, which could establish that she was a sub-broker and cash deposited in her bank account belong to her clients, then action of treating the entire cash deposits as per section 69 as unexplained investment of the assessee was held to be fully justified.
A bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (JM) and Vikram Singh Yadav (AM) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently declared that Interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act can be levied on ground of non-payment of advance tax in respect of Alternative Minimum Tax.
