Deepak Valji Karia Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and has to be quashed as the Assessing Officer has failed to provide the copies of statements on which he relied on for making assessments and also for not […]
Triumph International Finance India Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The first appellate authority has rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee for non-compliance of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act merely for the reason that during penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee has not stated the reasonable cause. […]
Once having accepted this position, the Assessing Officer cannot change his opinion in immediate next assessment year without there being any change in facts and circumstances. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld.
Statement of survey without any corroborative material cannot be the sole reason for addition to income. In this view of the matter, when the addition itself is on such a weak footing, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for such an addition is not at all sustainable.
Incom Cables Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, there is no dispute that the Director of the assessee Company who was looking after the functioning of the assessee Company, has joined to the course in Harward Business School and Management and the assessee Company has incurred the expenditure of Rs. […]
ACIT Vs Rakhi Properties and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We observe that Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the reasons recorded for reopening that assessee has received share application money from Mr. Shirish C. Shah, who provides accommodation entries. Subsequently when the remand report filed before Ld.CIT(A) in which Assessing Officer has agreed […]
CIT(A) did disposed of the case, ex parte of assessee. Under section 250 (6) of Income Tax, CIT(A) is expected to decide the appeal with reasons determining the points thereon.
ABB Limited Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Bangalore) Learned AR has given a table, wherein it is claimed that excess payment of advance tax for the 1st and the last quarter has been ignored while calculating interest u/s 234C of the I.T. Act. ITAT directs A.O. to examine the correctness of the claim of the assessee […]
It is to be noted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic. If assessee offers reasonable explanation, then, penalty cannot be imposed.
DCIT Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The facts clearly shows that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹29,46,886/- on non EDP and EDP equipments under IT expenses. This expenditure is related to purchase of Pen drives, laptop adapters, batteries and hard disk, etc. The learned Assessing Officer made the disallowance […]
