There is no provision u/s.44BB to support the Assessing Officer’s interpretation of the so called ‘second leg contract’ so as to deny the applicability of the section to the assessee. Only requirement of the section is plant and machinery is given on hire is used or to be used in the prospecting /extraction/production of mineral oil. Thus the learned DRP upheld the applicability of Section 44BB.
Motorola Inc, USA appeal before Delhi ITAT: When no intangible material came to the notice of the AO to form the opinion that the income of the assessee company has escaped assessment and all the facts and figures have been brought on record by the assessee company during assessment proceedings and same had been explained: The reassessment proceedings were not sustainable, having been made after a period of 4 years from the relevant assessment years
Shri Ashok Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the assessee has not filed any wealth tax returns. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Satya Narain Patni (supra) noted that the jewellery found during the search was within the limits prescribed by the CBDT circular and in the first instance, […]
As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated.
Vidya Education Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The operative words in Section 23(1)(a) are the sum, for which, the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. These words provide a specific direction to the Revenue for determining the fair rent. The A.O. having regard to the aforesaid provisions is expected to make […]
Pramod Kumar Lodha Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Decision of the AO holding the transaction as bogus and denying the claim of long term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is based on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the ITO […]
ITAT held that since the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued prior to the furnishing of return by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said notice deserves to be quashed. We, therefore, quash the reassessment framed by the AO.
Denial of assessee’s claim under section 10(38) on the basis of suspicion without any cogent material to show that the assessee had brought back its own unaccounted income in the shape of long-term capital gain was not justified.
AO has remained sited with folded hands and has not made any independent enquiry from concerned AO of share holder company which itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. On basis of this I have no hesitation to delete the additions of Rs 25,00,000 and Rs 45,000 made u/s 68
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane dated 13.07.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2010-11
