ITAT held that CIT(A) has considered the case laws and details submitted by the assessee. To our mind, same is amounting to miscarriage of justice
Shri Pankaj Surana Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) As per Section 57(iii) of the Act, any expenditure not being in the nature of a capital expenditure, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income under the head ‘income from other sources’ is to be allowed as a deduction. As […]
Vishnu Kumar Sinha (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur) In this case CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issue which did arise from the impugned order and has been assailed by the assessee before him. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the manner […]
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) It is not disputed by both the parties that there is no finding in the assessment order for levy of penalty for the alleged default u/s. 271B of the Act and it is also not disputed that after passing of the order on 31.12.2011, the alleged […]
Clean Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order as well as the assessment order, it would reveal that the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income […]
CIT (A) has erred in facts and law in holding that loss from sale of shares was short-term capital losses and hence not eligible for set of against income from profession of assessee.
We noted that the turnover has increased more than double and consequently expenses have increased little more than doubt on both counts i.e., salary as well as EB charges. We noted that the AO has made estimated disallowance on the basis that the assessee has not furnished any separate documents like details of staff or details of electricity bills.
Poonawalla Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The only issue pressed is about restricting the addition under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by considering only such investments which yielded tax free dividend income. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 108 (Del) has held that the […]
The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.
Merely reproducing the conclusions of investigation report in his own words is indeed borrowed satisfaction as contended by counsel for the assessee. Consequently, the Bench is inclined to decide these grounds of cross objection in favour of the assessee.
