Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The CIT’s sole reason for invoking section 263 jurisdiction alleges lack of verification in respect of 11 share and premium applicants to the tune of Rs. 56 lacs.
The Assessing Officer made disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. As per assessee, the AO has not established any nexus between the expenditure disallowed and investment made from which the income denied is exempt from tax.
Shri Govind G. Sarawagi HUF Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Name of the HUF, who is separate taxable entity, is no where available in the Panchnama. It is also pertinent to note that all the members of the HUF were not covered under the search action.
The claim of depreciation made by the assessee in the return of income included depreciation of wind mill @ 80% and additional depreciation @ 20% as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s claim of additional depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that additional depreciation
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Parul Bhupendra Patel vs. ITO held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of doubting certain information filed in the return of income and reopening assessment on that basis is not valid in law as AO had not obtained any new tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment.
Admittedly, the assessee had made payments to M/s Pickme Feeds in cash by directly depositing cash in the bank account of M/s Pickme Feeds for supply of poultry feeds to the assessee. The assessee in turn supplies the poultry feeds to various farmers in the rural areas.
DCIT V/s. M/s AT & S India Pvt Ltd.(ITAT Kolkata) Reimbursement of Information technology costs does not result in income in the hands of the recipient an hence, the payments are allowable deductions and not fall within the mischief of section 40(a)(i) read with section 195.
Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken
Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that the non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) after filing of the return of the Assessee, by way of letter, makes the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 bad in law.
M/s. A. T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Profits and gains u/s 10A were not to be included in the income of the assessee at all and as such the question of setting off of loss of assessee of any profits
