AO’s assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A of Income Tax Act,1961 and consequent passing of order of assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is void if Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153A
Notice as prescribed U/s. 143(2) was not properly served on assessee, ITAT Kolkata, held, that assessment made U/s. 144 of the Act was not valid & it was quashed.
Business of the assessee is carried on in the leased property and any expenditure is incurred on the construction of any structure by way of renovation, extension or improvement, then, section 32 will apply and accordingly, the assessee can claim depreciation on the value spent on such improvement or changes in the structure.
In view of these glaring facts, the assessment of Smt. Jaya Agrawal and the fact that the relevant purchases for AY 2004-05 have been held to be genuine, we see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting these additions. On the issues of Shri Chokshi, Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd., a catena of judgments from ITAT, Mumbai and Ahmedabad is available in favour of the assessee which view also stands confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Shri Mukesh Moralia.
M/s Padmini Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee filed return of income declaring loss and thereafter, filed revised return enhancing the amount of loss declared in the original return. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued by AO. The assessee contended that the scrutiny […]
ITAT held that No addition can be made u/s 68 in respect of any loan received prior to start of previous year relevant to present assessment year.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held that Penalty can be imposed only on disproved claim of expenditure and not unproved claim of expenditure.
ITAT held that on account of extra ordinary events viz. acquisition of IQ group of companies and amalgamation of Accentia Infoserve Pvt. Ltd with Accentia Technologies Ltd, the said company cannot be considered as good comparable.
For determination of capital gains according to section 50C market value of property as on date of sale deed or stamp duty value as on date of agreement to sale: which has to be taken?
Whether an agricultural land held by assessee, which is suitable for agricultural operation, loses the characteristics of agricultural land merely because no agricultural operation was carried by assessee on such land?
