CIT Vs Smt. Shashikala Ramkumar (ITAT Hyderabad) First of all it is not understandable how an AO can make addition on the bounced cheques. It is a general banking practice that once cheques are presented for clearance, bank credits out of its own funds, subject to clearance and when cheques are not cleared, the amounts […]
ACIT Vs Shri. Sunil Bandacharya Joshi (ITAT Bengaluru) In the present case, the capital asset was sold on 26.02.2011. The capital asset was purchased on 31.03.2011 and before the purchase of the capital asset the amount was deposited in mutual funds. Therefore in the considered opinion of the bench, before the date of filing of […]
When penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c), the specific ground, i.e., either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, penalty order was not sustainable in the absence of specific charge mentioned by AO.
That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing.
While computing exemption under section 54F, expenditure incurred towards vacating the new house property from tenants were includible as part of its cost, because existence of encumbrance was specified in the purchase agreement and original cost of acquisition was much lower than fair market value of the house property due to such attached illegal occupation.
Shri Arun Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. noted that as per Section 54(2) of the I.T. Act, the amount of capital gain, which is not utilized by him for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the ITR under section 139, shall be deposited by him, before furnishing such […]
Aforesaid appeals by the Revenue are against separate orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals)–2, Mumbai, in respect of three different assessees pertaining to assessment years 2008–09, 2010–11 and 2011–12.
The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30.04.2005 passed by CIT(A)-41, New Delhi confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the I. T. Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.
DCIT Vs M/s Dynamic Transmission Limited (ITAT Delhi) With regard to addition of Rs. 63,66,574/- on account of job work charges u/s. 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 is concerned, we note that the AO has observed that deduction u/s. 80IC is available only in respect of articles or things manufactured by itself in its […]
Question of disallowance under section 40A(3) would not arise, where assessee had not claimed the payments as expenditure, while computing its business income.
