The ITAT Mumbai disposing off miscellaneous application of ICAI held that the observations made by ITAT were not offensive, thus, cannot be deleted in totality. The same has been misunderstood by ICAI and ,therefore, modified suitably to ensure that the clear message that there is a need of improvement in the overall design of CA course
In the case of DCIT Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi the Kolkata ITAT held that comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied only in the cases of concealment of income in the return of income filed by the assessee. In the present case, the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A was accepted by the AO as it is which also included surrendered income not disclosed in the original return due to bonafide error.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ITO vs. M/s Bharat Agro Industries that section 69 comes into operation only if investments are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee which is not the case looking to the facts of the assessee wherein the bank balances are shown in the audited balance sheet
In the case of Venture Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Mumbai has held that (1) the Net profit shown in the Profit and loss account should be adjusted with the items given in Notes to accounts, meaning thereby,
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of Sri Som Dutt v ACIT that whenever, the money has been received from overseas, then the onus is on the Assessee to prove that all the transactions are bonafide when he is claiming that the amount has been received as Capital Receipt.
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s Shree Dhanwantri Herbals vs. The ITO that the careful reading of the form 10CCB, in a serial order would clearly show that the assessee is required to inform the location of the Industry and column (c) specifically ask the assessee to state whether business is a new business
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Johari Lal Sodhani that the CIT (A) had given various reasons of retraction and also has considered the evidence for not honouring the statement made under section 132(4).
ITAT Delhi held in Ambience Hotel & Resort Pvt. Vs CIT that if the AO had done his assessment ignoring the provisions of the IT act and TPA and ignoring the examinations/inquiry then that assessment was erroneous
