Follow Us:

All ITAT

Passing of ex-parte without giving hearing to Assessee would constitute violation of natural Justice

June 30, 2015 4981 Views 0 comment Print

When reassessment proceedings were started and ended by passing a reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, then original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and appeal against that order does not survive for adjudication and the same was correctly dismissed by the CIT(A).

Duty drawback is to be allowed under section 10B

June 30, 2015 2123 Views 0 comment Print

Mohini Originals v. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Facts of the Case The Assessee was an EOU filed its return of income, where AO observed that they have claimed exemption under section 10B which was allowed at the time of Assessment. Deduction on duty drawback was also allowed. However, in the proceedings for the next year A.O. […]

No addition is allowed if the minor difference is only 3.24% between declaration of Assessee & Calculation made by DVO

June 30, 2015 970 Views 0 comment Print

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DVO has estimated the cost of investment at Rs.3,58,39,100/- against the cost of investment declared by the assessee at Rs.3,47,12,678/-. Therefore, the difference is about 3.24% and for this minor difference, no addition is called for. Since the difference is very nominal, no addition is called for in this regard.

Statement U/s. 132(4) without any supporting material does not have any evidentiary value

June 30, 2015 1707 Views 0 comment Print

The sole basis of the Department to assess profit of Rs.70.00 lacs is based upon the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. It is a matter of fact that by the time statement was recorded, the entire project was not sold by the assessee. Only two shops were sold.

Retention money taxable as when the right to receive the same accrues

June 30, 2015 8932 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee was involved in power sector contracts and as per the terms and conditions of such work contract, an amount of 5 to 10% is used to deducted from the bills raised as retention money which would be payable to the assessee after successful completion of the commissioning of the project.

Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is curative and has retrospective effect, Appeal allowed

June 30, 2015 915 Views 0 comment Print

Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) provides that where the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee

Self serving recitals cannot be accepted as true Unless the assessee proves it

June 30, 2015 550 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, AO come to know about cash deposit of Rs.13.01 Lac by the assessee through AIR Information. On being called upon to explain the source of such cash deposit, assessee submitted that he has inherited a sum of Rs.13 lac from his mother who has died on 14-08-2006 and produced copy of her income tax return,

Some important aspects of allowability of business claim and concealment of penalty

June 30, 2015 594 Views 0 comment Print

Investments are made in Govt. securities, debentures, bonds having fixed rate of return. Assessee is maintaining books of account on mercantile system i.e, on accrual basis. Whether Payment of Interest accrues on day to day basis? Referring to the decision of tribunal, high-court and Supreme Court in various cases sighted

Review u/s 254(2) only if there is a mistake apparent from the record

June 30, 2015 876 Views 0 comment Print

If the AO had reopened the assessment and made a disallowance and these facts could affect the outcome of the issue, the AO should appear before the FAA to file an explanation about the chronology of events. But, in any manner the subsequent decision taken by the AO cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record.

Issue of ‘treatment of forfeiture of guarantee amount given for purchase of machinery’ , ‘validity of entertaining Revised claim and disallowance u/s 14A

June 30, 2015 1153 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee company rather assumed the risk of taking the liability of another company which cannot be said to be for business purpose of the assessee. Hence, the activity of advancing the money and paying the debt of the M/s. Vinedale Ltd. which was on account of purchase of machinery being capital asset, cannot be said to be the business activity

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930