We observed that the exemption was claimed U/s 54F of the Act on this account is Rs. 6,33,190/-. It is further noticed that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the purchase of new house in the name of wife of the assessee though the claim was denied by the AO.
When the assessee’s main dominant and prime objective was to promote the sports was not desire to earn profits but, object of promoting sports for Nation, it was clearly a charitable purpose. Assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11.
Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India Branch Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act on 23.03.2016 which is accompanied with demand notice issued u/s. 156 of the Act dated 23.03.2016. It is also noticed that in the draft assessment […]
Shri Jaideep Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) A question that arises for con sideration is whether the AO can issue second notice u/s 148 and initiate fresh reassessment proceedings before completion/conclusion of proceedings initiated by way of first notice u/s 148 either by way of dropping the first reassessment proceedings or completing the proceedings by […]
The assessee deposited this amount of Rs.2.20 crores in his bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank and the inference in which the normal man will draw is that the amount cannot be from any other source except from the transaction of sale of land because it is common in the transactions of immovable properties that there is under hand transactions.
ITAT Held that since no specific charge was framed either in the show-cause notice or in the body of penalty order and there was failure on the part of Ld. AO to frame specific charge against the assessee, the penalty would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. By deleting the impugned penalty, we allow the appeal.
The tax Auditor has also certified the deduction claimed as per Sl.No.33 of the Form No.3CD therefore, only for want of not filing Form NO.10CCB within the due date the claim of deduction should not be disallowed
ITAT held that the amount received by the assessee from sale of software and provision of software related services cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of the India – Singapore DTAA.
Reopening is on the wrong assumption of facts and the information received from another assessing officer would not by itself be the basis to have a belief that the income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, we find the reassessment is bad in law and quash the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.
Valco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Facts- The assessee originally filed return declaring total income of Rs.4,83,83,620/- on 28.09.2012 after claiming deduction of Rs.5,75,64,789/- u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2015 at an income of Rs.8,07,03,620/- after making an addition of Rs.3,23,20,000/- on account of […]
