CBDT undisputedly are binding on the department and any action in violation thereof renders it as untenable in law, consequently in the extant case, assessment been carried out in violation of instruction issued by CBDT deserves to be quashed, ergo we set-aside the first appellate order passed u/s 250 and quash the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act as bad in law.
CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of CSR expenses to book profit, when there is no such requirement to adjust the same while computing book profit as per section 115JB
ITAT held that requirement of filing Form 67 is directory in nature which is evident from the fact that Rule 128(9) does not contemplate disallowance of FTC in case of delay in complying with such condition.
Action of the Ld. CIT(E) suffered from sufficiency of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought, thus for the reason, we without commenting on the merits of the case, deem fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(E) for according reasonable & effective opportunity to refute the rejection vis-à-vis to comply with the requirements sought.
ITAT held that payment would be deemed to have been made on date the cheque was handed over to banker and date of payment was to be taken as date of presentation of cheques by assessee.
Once TDS element is reflected in Form No. 26AS, the Assessing Officer cannot allege that the parties are not genuine. Moreover, full details are available on record.
No ad hoc addition for bogus purchases should be made. Addition should be made to the extent of difference between gross profit rate on genuine purchases and GP rate on hawala purchases
Sureshkumar K Kataria Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot) ITAT notes that there was mismatch in the gross income reported by the assessee viz a viz the income reflecting in form 26AS for an amount of Rs. 4,13,081.00 only. As such, the assessee has shown less income by the impugned amount, therefore concurrent view was taken by […]
Kiran Roadlines Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot) The assessee is a registered firm in the business of transportation. It appears that for A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 identical penalty debited to P&L account has been allowed by he Ld. CIT(A). In appeal preferred before the ITAT by the Revenue dated 06.03.2009, the Hon’ble Bench has been pleased […]
Shivdham Industries P. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Guwahati) It has been stated before us by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the return of income filed in Form no. ITR-6 in Schedule CFL, the assessee has furnished ‘details of loss to be carried forward to future years’ totaling to Rs. 82,89,050/- which included […]
