In the case of Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assesse has failed to provide the loan confirmation of the loan received from Shri Kathirase Kumar and was also unable to provide an explanation as to why such confirmation could not be filed.
The issue in dispute raised in additional ground relating to non issue of the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is decided in favour of the assessee and we hold that the impugned assessment order dated 31.12.2009 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act by the AO as invalid.
Issue- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,83,555/- which was made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act as the service tax payable in the balance sheet was not deposited before due date of filing of return.
ITAT Chennai held in the case of DCIT vs M/s. Sri Balasubramania Mills Ltd. that the section 148 could only be invoked whenever there is a failure on the side of Assessee to furnish all the necessary details. But, in this case the details were furnished as relevant sale deed was available with the AO
The assessee received revenue on account of the contract entered into with ONGC for providing services of seismic survey to the data correction supervision for the purpose of hydrocarbon reservoir exploitation, possible leak point identification and core site selection from available 2D and 3D seismic data, core acquisition with USBL System, sample processing, prevention and transportation, laboratories analysis and interpretation and report.
Medravathi Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is observed that the assessee company as well as other thirteen land owning companies were incorporated with their main object to carry on the agricultural activities and there is no dispute about the same. In order to pursue this main objects, these companies purchased agricultural […]
The statement recorded by an officer on oath will be used as evidence in any proceeding, whereas statement recorded u/s. 133A has not given any evidentiary value because it was recorded by the authority, which has not been empowered to administer the oath to the assessee and take sworn statement.
We have considered the rival submissions carefully and perused the order of the AO and the CIT(A). In this case of the assessee original assessment was framed in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter the completed assessment was sought to be reopened by the AO by issuance of the notice u/s 148 on the assessee on basis of reopening
Annam Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITAT Chennai) Assesse, an EOU, filed its return claiming exemption u/s 10 B. A.O. rejected assesse’s claim. In appellate proceedings , assesse raised a plea that in relevant year it had claimed deduction u/s 10 A
The MAT provisions were introduced in statute by the Finance Bill, 1996 and the Finance Minister while introducing this provision observed that the company engaged in the power and infrastructure sector will remain exempt from the levy of MAT.
