Where assessee was not required to maintain any books of account and there was no mechanism to report the investment in the tax return, the said investment could not be held as undisclosed investment and more so, undisclosed income so defined in section 271AAB, therefore, investment so found in purchase of Villa could not be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning of “undisclosed income” and penalty levied thereon was liable to be set aside.
Shri Dilpreet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Section 148 Conclusive proof as to escapement of income at notice stage not required At the stage of issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the only question to be seen is whether there was relevant material, on the basis of which a reasonable […]
M/s. Theis Precision Steel India Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From perusal of Section 37 of the Act, we find that all expenditure incurred in the course of business of the assessee is allowable except personal expenditure and capital expenditure. Admittedly, professional fee has been paid for valuation of know-how of business and, therefore, […]
M/s. Barco Electronic Systems (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts of the Case ♣ Barco Electronic Systems Pvt. Ltd. ( taxpayer) is engaged in business of manufacturing of projectors and parts, trading in visual display products and provision of software development services. ♣ During the year under consideration, the taxpayer entered into various international […]
Principal Sri Sathya Sai College for Women Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Assessee college has issued appointment letters to teachers/ lecturers/ staff members from time to time to whom salary was paid. The monthwise salary sheet was also prepared by the college on the basis of the attendance register of the employees. The salary was paid […]
M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that the onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not […]
Provision of section 45(3) are exhaustive and does not confer any power on the AO to adopt consideration different from what is recorded in the books of account of the firm. Thus, AO was not correct in adopting the market value of land as revalued subsequently by the firm in the books of account.
DCIT Vs Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer was of the view that in the absence of any scheme formulated by the assessee bank, the amount paid as ex-gratia to prematurely retiring employees was not to be allowed as deduction. The case of […]
Alfa Bhoj Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) With respect to the claim of the deduction of deferred revenue expenditure of Rs. 2950195/– the assessee submitted that the above expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for exploring the future business opportunities. The learned AO disallowed the above sum u/s 37 of the income tax act […]
Rasai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, there has been an omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the LTCG on sale of the shops in its return of income for the year under consideration. However, at the same time, we cannot remain oblivious of the bonafides of the assessee, which […]
