ITAT Kolkata held In case of ACIT vs. M/s Prem Lal Jain that no addition could be made u/s 69 as the entire investments in shares made by the assessee have been duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee which are part of the seized documents
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of ICI India Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that liability towards leave encashment is a definite liability which has accrued and arisen during the year. However, payment of the same does not fall during the relevant previous year but under the mercantile system
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Jayantilal Vaishnav HUF vs. JCIT that the reasonable cause u/s 273B need to be seen from the context of the situation where a person is reasonably and under bonafide belief of taking a action beyond his control i.e. cause which prevent a reasonable person in ordinary
Appeal filed by Assessee – The Assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in running a Super Specialty Cardiac hospital. The assessee employs two types of Doctors, viz. Full time Consultants (herewith “FTCs)
The ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Mahabir Educational Welfare Society vs. DCIT held that for claiming exemption u/s 10)(23C)(iiiad) filling of return of income as per the law applicable for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 was not mandatory as the gross receipts not exceeded Rs. 1 crore
The Assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of readymade garments and export to foreign countries. The Assessee had filed the Income Tax Return, declaring an income of Rs. 11,82,236/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ITO vs. M/s. Superline Construction P. Ltd. that the assessee had duly discharged the burden of proof, onus of proof and explained the source of share capital and advances received by established the identity
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s B & B Infotech Ltd. vs. ITO that once P&L A/c is admittedly prepared as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, then neither the AO has any power to tinker with it nor the assessee is permitted to claim exclusion or inclusion of any item of income
DCIT VS. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (ITAT MUMBAI) The assessee was entitled to get subsidy @3% from the state government. As per the agreement with WB it was decided that it would get higher subsidy i.e. 4.5 %.
Chopra Properties Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO was of the view that according to provisions of Section 44AB assessee is required to get his accounts audited before specified date and not on the specified date. Therefore, as assessee has obtained this tax audit report on 30th September 2008 and not before 30th September, 2008, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B of the IT Act.
