Ajay Narayan Bhoir Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case of return of income processed under section 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is that taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material was there before the AO warranting re-opening, was not relevant. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT […]
Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically lead to an inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
Once assessee empowers his Authorised represntative to appear before authorities, all of authorised representatives concessions were binding on assessee and there was no need to ignore any concession made by Authorised representative and personally call upon assessee to make concession in every case.
Where the amount of insurance claim was less than the amount of actual expenditure incurred on re-construction/renovation, no short term capital gain u/s. 45(1A) could be charged under such circumstances.
Due to amendment made in section 132 by the Finance Act, 2017 w.r.e.f. 1-4-1962 the reason to believe or reason to suspect, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or authority or appellate Tribunal as recorded, by IT authority under section 132 or 132A, therefore, assessment order passed was not bad in law on account of not furnishing any valid reason for conducting the search.
Assessee had declared additional incomes when AO confronted with details of Form No. 26AS , it could not be said that declaration of income by assessee was voluntary, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment was justified, especially in view of the fact that similar income had been earned and duly offered to tax during earlier years also.
Issuance of notice under section 153C is mandatory and a condition precedent for taking action against assessee under section 153C, therefore, assessment order under section 153C issued without issuing a notice under section 153C was bad in law.
M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, the amount so received is not liable to be taxed as deemed dividend. Moreover, the transaction between two group concerns were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing […]
ince CIT(A) had erred in dismissing appeal filed manually by assessee. CIT(A) was directed to admit appeal filed by assessee by directing assessee to file its appeal in electronic format and also to condone delay
Portfolio management fees and performance linked fees were paid by assessee to his portfolio manager, towards service charges for making investments of his funds and managing portfolio of securities, therefore, same not being an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the shares, had rightly been held by AO as not allowable as a deduction under section 48.
