Shanthi R. Pai Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) AO made addition of Rs.26,79,000/- on account of cash deposits. Assesee stated that she is a home maker & her husband was employed overseas as Chartered Accountant serving overseas from 1975 to 2008. He used to send money from abroad and also invested in Term Deposits in India […]
ITO (TDS) Vs Hadpawat Enterprises (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) From a plain reading of second proviso to Section 272A(2) which is inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012, it is clear that penalty under clause (k) of Section 272(A)(2) cannot be levied on or after the 1st Day of July, 2012. In the instant […]
Pallava Textiles Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In this case, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reported income. The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act calling explanations from the assessee as to why penalty cannot be levied for under-reporting […]
Addition made on the basis of information and material collected on the back of the assessee cannot be tackled as valid basis for making addition
Tax Authorities have fallen in error in holding that assessee required to pay TDS @10% towards common area maintenance charges.
Neelam Nitin Sankhe Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The only reason for making addition of Rs.27.00 lacs in Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs.5.00 lacs in Assessment Year 2014-15 is that the name of assessee appeared in some document found during the search action in the case of Ameya Group(supra). There is nothing on record to further […]
Return of income so filed was late by one minute. Therefore, deduction claimed by assessee under section 80IA(4) of Act was denied by CPC
ACIT Vs Mahavir Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Raipur) Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee company which is engaged in the business as that of a developer, had in order to promote its sales incurred expenses towards stamp duty and registration fees with respect to the properties sold by […]
ITAT Delhi held that co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years duly hold that Huawei India is permanent establishment of Huawei China in India. Based on norms of judicial discipline the same is implied in the present assessment too.
Maranaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) 271B Penalty- When the Assessee Has Not Maintained the Books of Account, There Is No Question of Getting the Books of Account Audited U/S 44AB Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) making additions to the returned income u/s 44AD. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271A & 271B. […]
