Assessee was not aware of this fact that the sale proceeds arised out of sale of an agricultural land is exempt from tax u/s 10 of the Act hence the assessee inadvertently could not adduce the said fact before the Assessing Officer as well as while filing the return of income.
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is following conservative method of accounting for valuation of closing stock. The films purchased are shown at cost if the same are sold in the year, the profit or loss on the same is recorded.
The Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in flexible packaging material. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961
Rashmikant Baxi (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Reference to DVO can be made in two situations; first, the value is adopted based on report of registered valuer and second, in any other case. In assessee’s case, fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981 is based on valuation report of registered Valuer.
Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) When the document is sent by speed post and when the same is not returned to the sender by the postal department, the presumption is that it has been served on the assessee.
The facts on this issue are that the original assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Dehradun u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2010. The reasons recorded by the Id. AO (copy has been placed
Assessing Officer added last amount of short term capital gains to the tune of Rs. 54,67,547/- under section 50 of the Act. This comprised of a sum of Rs. 4,86,650/- qua factory building and Rs. 49,80,897/- relating to plant and machinery.
Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The CIT’s sole reason for invoking section 263 jurisdiction alleges lack of verification in respect of 11 share and premium applicants to the tune of Rs. 56 lacs.
The Assessing Officer made disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. As per assessee, the AO has not established any nexus between the expenditure disallowed and investment made from which the income denied is exempt from tax.
Shri Govind G. Sarawagi HUF Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Name of the HUF, who is separate taxable entity, is no where available in the Panchnama. It is also pertinent to note that all the members of the HUF were not covered under the search action.
