We do not agree with the reasons given by the AO for the simple reason that when survey team was noticed unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also difference has been treated as unaccounted income of the assessee, then question of making further additions towards unaccounted purchases does not arise. Moreover, it is only net result of unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales, needs to be taxed.
Doloo Tea Company (India) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Admittedly, in this case in hand, the land has already been treated as agricultural land not capital in nature and the tea bushes have been cultivated by the assessee to obtain tea leaves and the shade trees are grown by the assessee for the protection of […]
Merely because building was used by assessee-trust without consideration that cannot be said to be, in any way, any unexplained investment by assessee-trust justifying addition under section 69
Sardarmal Kothari Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that when an assessment has been made under sec.143(3) and not under sec.144 of the I.T. Act, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there is no […]
ITAT held that first of all the assessee has offered this in assessment year 2007-08, it cannot be added again and moreover, this being highly contentious issue and debatable whether this is to be assessed in assessment year 2007- 08 or 2009-10, it cannot be rectified while acting u/s.154 of the Act.
Ved Indian Heritage Haat Foundation Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly, the assessee is running its business from the rented premises which was taken for the lock in period of 60 months. Furthermore, in the rent agreement, there was the clause of renewal of the agreement. Accordingly, AO was of the view that the expenditures incurred […]
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act is leviable when the assessee has accepted the additional/undisclosed income during the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per CBDT circular no. 4/2007 dated 15.6.2007 and 6/2016 dated 29-2-2016, person can hold shares as both investment and stock-in-trade Accordingly income will be taxable based on the type in which share is hold.
ITAT Chennai held that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unsustainable as the matter is highly debatable.
Section 80AC contemplates denial of deduction in respect of certain provisions of Chapter VI ‘A’ of the Act, if ITR is not filed. Those provisions do not apply to the claim for deduction u/s. 80P.
