On facts we find that issues have been enquired into at length by AO and orders cannot be set aside on mere whims & fancies of Revisionary Authority
ITO Vs Sh. Subash Chander (ITAT Amritsar) It is prayed that all the assessment years need to be considered cumulatively by lower authorities taking into account not only the evidence already on record but also by allowing assessee to provide further evidence in support of his submissions because the entire proceedings have been carried out […]
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A)/ NFAC failed to consider circular no. F.173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23.04.2019 and subsequent circular No.2/2020 vide F.No.197/55/2018-ITA-I dated 03.01.2020 which are issued by CBDT and the same is binding on the revenue authorities. Accordingly, matter restored.
Crawley & Roy Founders Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In respect of addition made for delay in depositing of employees’ contribution to ESI, from the perusal of Form 3CD, we note that there is a typographical mistake in writing the year of deposit which has been mentioned as 2018 instead of 2017 as […]
ITAT Delhi held that CRS, which was the source of revenue, was partially existent in the machines namely various computers installed at the premises of the subscribers. As assessee exercised complete control over the computers installed at premises of the subscribers. This amounted to a fixed place of business for carrying on the business of the enterprise in India.
Only because the ld Pr. CIT being a higher authority and more wiser in experience considered that enquiry in some other aspects would have resulted in different opinion, does not give jurisdiction to exercise revisional power u/s 263. That being so the grounds raised are allowed and the impugned order of revisional authority is set aside.
M. Vijayakumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the CIT(A) has not doubted the source of maturity of assessee’s father FDs of Rs.8 lakhs which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016. Admittedly, the assessee made deposit on 10.11.2016 in cash, this amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The only dispute is confirmation, which now the assessee confirmed by […]
Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee contended that the impugned amounts were taken for the purpose of business activities of the company and the advance of Rs.14,44,730/- from M/s. Rustogi Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.3,35,38,660/- from M/s. Rustogi Projects Private Limited and the same was received as business advances. The ld. AR further […]
Harmeet Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case there is no dispute so far as the percentage of commission is concerned as the same has been accepted by the assessee during the search proceedings as well as during the assessment / appellate proceedings. The only point of concern is whether the assessee has actually […]
ITAT Delhi held that addition in Income Tax proceedings is liable to be set aside as the addition was made on the basis of the finding of Central Excise Department which was eventually decided in favor of the assessee.
