The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 14A read with rule 8D is justified in law? Respectfully following the precedent, ITAT set-aside the impugned order on this score and order to delete the disallowance.
Surana Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 69C by considering the purchases as Bogus Purchase is justified in law? ITAT states that, in present case, the assessee has shown sales of the goods, or otherwise the goods are lying in the closing stock. If […]
National Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 14A without following calculation method mentioned under rule 8D is justified in law?
Issue was as regards imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance by assessee with respect to statutory notices issued under section 142(1), when assessment was completed under section 143(3).
AXA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) We have considered the rival submissions. We find that despite all the details having been filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals), the CIT(Appeals) has not considered those submissions with regard to the sum disallowed by the AO, except the sum of Rs.81,52,209 which was incurred […]
Mantri Developers Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) As per these provisions, even if the building is not actually let out and the assessee is not occupying the same for the purpose of business, Annual Value of the building is to be estimated at the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to […]
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?
The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance u/s 69C of entire purchase amount by considering it as bogus is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether AO is correct in invoking section 50C where no reference to valuation officer despite being request made by assessee?
Assessing Officer was of the firm belief that operation of Explanation 7 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act is prospective, since it has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 and made effective from 01.04.2016 and, therefore, not applicable in the year under consideration.
