The issue under consideration is whether the deletion of adjustment made u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on account of interest on loan and on account of corporate guarantees is justified in law?
Narang Access Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the valuation done by the assessee for valuing its shares is on the basis of DCF method and the AO could not have substituted it by NAV method rather he should have arrived at another value, if any, by applying DCF method only. […]
Issuance of notice under section 143(2) on the very same day when return was filed showed non-application of mind on AO’s part in issuing section 143(2) notice and thereafter in framing assessment and therefore, all proceedings were nullity.
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in adopting land value of adjacent area, just because the colony is adjacent to a road, which has a higher guideline value is justified in law and in ignoring the specific guideline value fixed by the Government in respect of specific colony or flat?
ITAT Jaipur ruling on Amrapali Exports Vs DCIT case. Can deduction u/s 10AA be claimed on enhanced profits after disallowance u/s 69C? Read now.
AO required assessee-company to prove genuineness of share capital along with premium received by it. Assessee furnished various evidences in that regard. However, AO made addition under section 68 on the ground that in response to summons under section 131 shareholder companies had not appeared for personal deposition.
ITO Vs Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) An addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act where during any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, which exceeds the amount recorded on this count in the […]
ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As two of the share applicant companies as per the information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, were the companies controlled an infamous accommodation entry provider, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the lower authorities to have carried out […]
In this case assessee was asked to explain penalty on one count, whereas Penalty has been levied on other count. This itself called for quashing of penalty order passed by AO for all years under consideration. Therefore, penalty order was quashed and set aside.
Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue for consideration before us is whether in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus […]
