DCIT Vs Atlas Copco (India) Limited (ITAT Pune) The assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to […]
Smt. Asha Gandhi Vs The ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Conclusion: Tribunal urged State to remove violations of tax laws by new assessees such as part time enterprising housewives, illiterate, semi-skilled men/women or teenagers by highlighting the concepts of agents of economic change; creation of Tax Advisory Cell; and coming out with Policy/Tax Compliance Scheme for the […]
This is a simple case of acquiring shares of certain companies from certain shareholders without paying any cash consideration and instead the consideration was settled through issuance of shares to the respective parties. That is, section 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 does not apply to cases of purchase of share assets and allotment of shares by the appellant when purchase and allotment are under a barter
The question raised in appeal is challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of Section 14(A) r.w.s. 8D(2)(ii)&(iii) of the Rules.
The issue under consideration is whether the capital gain will be chargeable in case of JDA even if Permissive possession was not handed over to builder during the concerned year?
Statement recorded during survey, under section 133A, does not have a evidentiary value on its own and, therefore, no addition was maintainable on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey as there was no evidence supporting the statement.
ACIT Vs New Horizons Limited (Kolkata High Court) It is observed that physical verification of stock was carried out by the assessee-company in the month of January and February, 2015 as a matter of internal control and surplus stock of Rs.4,70,54,450/- found on such physical verification was duly incorporated by the assessee-company in its books […]
Shri A. R. Prasad Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) When we compare the terms of possession in the said case as per Para 4 of the tribunal order reproduced above and the terms of JDA in the present case as reproduced above, we find that in both cases, the possession is handed over to the builder […]
Since the cash deposit made by assessee was from the business activities of glass bangle trading business, therefore, no addition under section 69 over and above the returned income would be warranted.
otice under section 148 issued on the basis of insufficient compliance to Letters dated 20.05.2011 and dated 02.02.2016 were wholly unauthorized in law as the reasons recorded must indicate that AO had applied his mind to the fact that income was chargeable to tax under the Act and it had exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. Hence, reassessment was not valid as there were no reasons recorded by AO in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case.
