ITO Vs Amit Murlidhar Kamthe (ITAT Pune) Firstly, no possession was given to the developer under the JDA as an owner. Secondly, a part of the land at the material time in 2008 vested in the Government of Maharashtra. Thirdly, the transaction admittedly fell through and a part of the land was eventually sold to […]
Vijay Mohan Harde Vs ACIT (ITAT Pune) A copy of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act has been placed in the appeal folder, from which it is discernible that the AO did not strike off either of the two limbs viz., concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, […]
Simranpal Singh Suri Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) This shows that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on the very same day on which the assessee appeared and furnished copy of ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. It has been held in various decisions that when the notice […]
Addition made on account of AMP expenses qualified as an ‘international transaction’ under the terms of section 92B(1) read with section 92F(v) was not justified as AMP Expenses did not qualify as an ‘international transaction’ for the purposes of section 92B firstly, there was no international transaction in the form of any agreement or arrangement on AMP expenditure incurred by assessee company; and secondly, under FAR analysis also, no such benefit from the AMP expenditure having any kind of bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets as accrued to the AE or any kind of benefit has arisen to the AE.
Harish Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Admittedly, in the present case the notebook entries containing entry pertaining to the business of M/s Sharma Overseas Services was recovered from the possession of the assessee. The authorities below have not rejected the contention of the assessee that the entries in note book pertained to the business concern […]
Any material collected at the back of assessee or any statement recorded under section 131 at the back of assessee could not be read in evidence against assessee, unless same was confronted to assessee and that assessee should be allowed to cross-examine to such statements.
DCIT Vs Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Sec. 23(5) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018. In terms of the said section, it is prescribed that ‘where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any […]
Since AO passed the assessment order and accepted the return filed by assessee after examining the issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and the capital gain from sale of flats and had reflected that same in its capital account, therefore, CIT had exceeded jurisdiction under section 263 by directing AO to make fresh assessment on the issues which were not the subject matter of the AO’s limited scrutiny.
When the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assesseee on the very same day on which assessee filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 stating that the return already filed may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148, such notice issued u/s 143(2) on the very same day had to be treated as invalid and assessment was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the AO.
ACIT Vs Hirapanna Jewellers (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case the assessee has established the sales with the bills and representing outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and there were no abnormal profits. In spite of conducting the survey the AO did not find any defects in […]
