Since assessee had not brought on record any documentary evidence to show that it had incurred interest expenditure as against the income assessed under the head `income from other sources. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.1,83,003 was confirmed.
Naveen Tyagi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) HC held that if notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee in accordance with law the reassessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In the case on hand as the Revenue could not prove the service of notice u/s 148 on the […]
Dilip B. Desai Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) From 01.04.2010 the business of the assessee was converted from sole proprietorship concern to newly incorporated partnership concern in the name of ‘D.B. Desai & Associates’ and PAN allotted to it is ‘AAHFD1697D’. Since the business was shifted to the partnership firm from 01.04.2010 all the relevant information […]
Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The validity of impugned assessment order resulting in present appeal is under challenge on the grounds of notice issued under Section 143(2) purportedly barred by limitation. It is the case of the assessee that, in the instant case, assessee has filed the return of income on 14.10.2011 and […]
Kedar Cotton Industries Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is observed that the approval to reopen the assessment in the present case and issue notice under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee was accorded by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax by recording his satisfaction in one word ‘Yes‘ and even the learned DR […]
Jain Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 41 postulates disallowance of cessation of liability for expenditure incurred in trading account earlier. In the present case, disallowance has been made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the plank that the purchases are not genuine. In our considered opinion, the issue […]
It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the notice dated 25.02.2013 issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not legally sustainable as it is not disclosed as to if the notice is issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particular income.
Honble Delhi High Court considering the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the primary ground on the basis of which proceedings under Section 147 were initiated he cannot make other additions.
So far as the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is concerned, it is noted that since the income of the assessee is exempt under section 10(23C)(vi), therefore, any disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) by the ld. Assessing Officer will only add to the income of the assessee, which otherwise is exempt under section 10(23C) as stated above.
Explore the Kalpesh Patel vs ITO case at ITAT Ahmedabad. Learn about the technical breach, CIT(A) dismissal, and the ITAT decision to grant an opportunity for e-appeal.
