M/s. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case the penalty was levied for wrong claim of TDS in the return of income to the tune of Rs.3,48,120/- without offering the corresponding income to tax. In fact this TDS did not belong to the assessee but appeared in the form No. 26AS […]
Reassessment under section 147 on the basis of report of Investigation Wing without conducting further enquiry on the same was invalid and liable to be set aside.
Since CIT(A) had admitted additional evidences without complying with rule 46A which was fatal to sustaining of appellate order passed by CIT(A), therefore, the matter was restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 69 for Cash deposited in assessee’s bank account being Power of Attorney holder for sale of property belong to her father is justified in law?
Penalty under Section 271B was justified as assessee had not produced audit report in the prescribed format before AO and no explanation regarding the reasonable cause for not filing the audit report within the prescribed time limit was given.
DCIT Vs Sovereign Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) A bare perusal of reasons for reopening would show that the Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 148 r.w.s. 147 after the expiry of four years to cover up his own follies. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has […]
Where assessee placed sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. to prove genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares such as copies of bank statement, Demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., and no material had been brought on record against assessee to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be sustained.
Chandu Laxman Chavan Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) While levying penalty, the Assessing Officer invoked only the charge of “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”. It is evident that while recording satisfaction the Assessing Officer was not clear in his mind as to which charge u/s. 271(1) (c) is to be invoked for initiating penalty. The ambiguity […]
Whether the penalty levied by CIT(A) u/s 272A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in law? Penalty u/s 272A is not justified for Assessee having exempt income u/s 10(23C).
Where amount received by assessee in excess of advance was on account of compensation for extinction of its right to sue the owner, the receipt was a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
