Sunrise Jewellers Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Addition of Rs. 1,19,848/- on ad hoc basis without specifying/pinpointing which voucher is not verifiable After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record along with the paper book filed by the assessee as well as the orders of the authorities below and the written […]
Ram Niwas Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) It is not in dispute that if the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateeraj Singhvi (supra) is applied then the levy of interest u/s.234-E of the Act would be illegal for returns of TDS in respect of the period prior […]
UL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The next issue relates to the addition made rejecting the claim of change in method of revenue recognition. The Ld A.R fairly admitted that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2009-10 (referred supra). We notice that this issue has […]
Sungrow Impex Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: CIT had recorded his satisfaction for reopening of the assessment in a most mechanical manner without considering even the assessment records or the return of income filed by assessee and his satisfaction appeared to be in a ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. Therefore, such approval […]
Only those investments which had yielded dividend income for computing the average value of investments would be considered for the purpose of computing the amount of disallowance u/s 14A.
Malay Prasad Vs ACIT (ITAT Allahabad) As could be seen from provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act that if any sum is found credited in the books of accounts maintained for any previous year , and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the […]
Sarita Singh Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 273B of the I.T. Act provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the persons or the assessee as the case may be for any failure referred to in section 271D of the I.T. Act, if he proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said […]
Supreme Court has held that issue of a legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for usurping jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and in the absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) cannot be framed and omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not a curable defect.
ACIT Vs Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case, as will be evident from the perusal of the agreements, as enclosed in the Paper book and relevant portions of which are discussed as above, all the agreements under consideration are not for a specific work, they are for development of facility as a […]
Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra) It is clear that the land in question was acquired by National Highway Authority of India on 05.02.2013 under the National Highway Authority Act, 1856. When the award was passed acquiring the land, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 […]
