Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pradeep G. Vora v/s ITO has dealt in depth about the power of the tribunal to admit new additional ground and has held that tribunal Cannot be Precluded from handling any point (facts or law) which pertains to the assessment even if it is raised for the first time before it and was not raised before the authorithies below by observing as under:-
The Assessing Officer has though power to re–assess but no power to review and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, then in the garb of the re–assessment, review of earlier orders would take place.
It is clear that the assessee may be under the bonafide belief that TDS is not liable to be deducted on payments made to non-banking financial institution. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides that no penalty under section 271C shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
In the present case, we find that the assessee has earned interest income on fixed deposits made by the assessee with sub-treasury, Meenachili, Kadappattoor and SBI Pala totaling Rs. 20,21,909/- and the interest income earned on the surplus funds of the assessee cannot be considered
As per sub-section (1) of section 282, the notice is to be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it was a summons issued by Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). The relevant provision for effecting of service by different modes are contained in rules 17, 19 and 20 of Order V of CPC. Rules 17, 19 and 20
The Assessee was a significant shareholder in a company – The company sold building to shareholder on credit – Department treated it as ‘loan’ or ‘advance’ for invoking Section 2(22)(e). CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that since the unpaid purchase price has not been paid
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the addition of Rs 13,80,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act which does not form part of any specific head of income and is also not business income, therefore brought forward unabsorbed depreciation cannot be allowed set off against the same.
Reassessment proceedings are bad in law in as much as the AO sought to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years and not followed the procedures laid down in section 151(2) of the Act for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
Assessee-Company,engaged in the business of life insurance,filed its return of income on 29/10/2005 declaring total income at Rs.3 1.19 lakhs. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30/03/2007.Later on a notice u/s 147 of the Act was issued by the AO.From the assessment records
At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer had received definite information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi with regard to accommodation entries being provided by various entry operators.
