ACIT Vs Bharat Carriers ltd (ITAT Cuttack) Under sub-item 2(ii) of Item III of Appendix I of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, higher rate of depreciation is admissible on motor trucks used in a business of running them on hire. Therefore, the user of the same in the business of transportation of the assessee is […]
Bhikhabhai Ambalal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. AR submitted that mere existence of addition during the assessment proceedings does not attract provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the CIT(A) has not pointed out as to on what basis the penalty was imposed. In fact, notice under Section 274 read […]
Swaraj Builders Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) Assessee had failed to comply with the mandate of law and had failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194A of the Act on the aforesaid amount of interest payment of Rs.7,46,025/-. Accordingly, the A.O had disallowed the amount of Rs.7,46,025/-u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which was thereafter, upheld by the […]
Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Centralised Processing Centre (ITAT Mumbai) The facts in the present case shows that form number 3CD where the statement of particulars required to be furnished u/s 44AB of the income tax act 1961 are prepared by the assessee and is not an audit report. Form number 3CA is […]
As section 50C applies only to a capital asst, being land or building or both, it cannot be made applicable to lease rights in a land.
Col. Ranjan Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank on 05.06.2015. I notice that the assessee has withdrawn cash in small amounts in subsequent period also. Since the assessee is an aged person and retired from army, it is quite possible that […]
For invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of income tax act, the assessment order passed by assessing officer should be erroneous so far as prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Amritha Raj gets a second chance at appeal in ITAT Bangalore. Non-appearance costs imposed but opportunity granted to present case before CIT(A)
Bharat Rana Chaudhry Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that sub-clause (iii) of section 271(l)(c) provides mechanism for quantification of penalty. It contemplates that the assessee would be directed to pay a sum in addition to taxes, if any, payable him, which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the […]
Sh. Prem Pal Gandhi Vs ACIT (ITAT Amritsar) The appellant objected to the levy of penalty as bad in law. He challenged that the AO has not mentioned under which limbs of section 27 1(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was initiated. Thus, He has […]
