ITAT Bangalore held that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should ensure the benefit of the subject/ assessee. Accordingly, the taxing provision of late fee in respect of late filing of TDS return came into force from 01.06.2015. Hence, late fees u/s 234E cannot be levied before 01.06.2015.
Nandini V. Kalgutkar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) On perusal of section 41 of the IT Act, it is evident that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in any assessment in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. Then, subsequently, […]
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on the assessee based on the disclosure made by other person during the course of search proceedings.
Dipakkumar Ishwarlal Panchal Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly the concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, for which act penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the present case has been levied, related to the income added as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. More particularly on account of the fact that actual consideration paid […]
ITAT Chandigarh held that Ld. NFAC ignoring the submissions and the documents being sought to be filed as additional evidences and dismissal of assessees appeal without even commenting on the submissions or the documents is patently and legally wrong.
Dy.C.I.T Vs Ashok Developers & Builders Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted fact that a search & seizure operation took place in the premises of the assessee on 18.02.2016 and certain incriminating documents were found and seized. We find the AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determined the […]
AO had wrong assumption of facts and by applying incorrect law without due application of mind allowed claim of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b). Therefore, in our opinion, PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction
AO cannot scrutinise Income Tax return without issuing section 143(2) notice and order without such notice suffers from patent irregularity and it cannot be made a foundation for subsequent proceedings either 263 or any other proceeding.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per Accounting Standard 11 premium on forward exchange contracts is to be amortized as expense means writing it off as revenue expenditure in the profit and loss account.
In present facts of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,31,000/- by the AO, while considering the fact that the family members of the assessee were earning (but were below taxable limits), and the deposits made were from the past savings and earnings of the entire family which were pooled together.
