Assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue if AO has taken one of possible views of matter.
Bhaveshbhai Manilal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) In this case by Information noted by the AO of cash deposits of Rs.10.00 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee leading to belief of escapement of income, has been duly demonstrated before me to be incorrect. The actual cash deposits were only to the tune of […]
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging inaccurate particulars not leviable as assessee was subjected to tax on book profits u/s 115JB.
ITAT Delhi held that eligible deduction under section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities.
ITAT Hyderabad held that payment to contract teachers doesn’t qualify as ‘fee for professional services’ and accordingly TDS under section 194J of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
ITAT Mumbai deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as penalty order was issued without striking off the irrelevant limb/ inapplicable words.
Held that the non-inclusion of surrendered income in the Book Profits of the assessee as per section 115JB of the Act, was not a patent error amenable to rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 292BB of the Income tax Act doesn’t cure complete absence of notice. Section seeks to cure only the manner of service of notice.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that rent received from sub-letting the property is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’ and not under the head ‘income from house property’.
JCIT (OSD) Vs Yashmaan Pathak (ITAT Mumabi) No scope of adhoc or estimated addition u/s. 41(1) & the entire conditions precedent for invoking section 41(1) has to be fulfilled. Assessee has filed his return of income and the AO during scrutiny issued show cause notice to the assessee to file details and confirmation of the […]
