When additional evidence entertained by the CIT(A) has not been brought on record in accordance with Rule 46A subsequent findings on the same are vitiated because there is not even a whisper of remand report admittedly submitted in this case by the AO.
Code modifications carried out by the stock broker should not affect the claim of the assessee unless it is proved that the assessee has colluded with the stock broker in carrying out the modification
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s 263 cannot be invoked when the order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO had only recorded general satisfaction but not with reference to the accounts of the assessee and hence has not satisfied the formula contained in rule 8D in order to compute disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
PCIT has given his own observation which amounts to review and change of opinion or review while exercising Section 263 is not permitted by the Income Tax Statute. Thus, the PCIT was not right in exercising Section 263 in assessee’s case.
Sh. Jasdeep Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has furnished all the vouchers. He submitted that the Assessing Officer remarked that vouchers of Rs.5,31,271/- of Taj Mahal Hotel were not furnished is totally wrong as the same was duly furnished and there is no specific defect pointed […]
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Private Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) PCIT has passed the impugned revision order for the reason that the AO has not properly examined the weighted deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act vis-à-vis Form 3CL. However, the AO has reopened the assessment and has examined the above said Form 3CL, but […]
As per explanation a to section 56 (2)(viib) of Income Tax Act it has been specifically provided that fair market value of shares shall be based on (1) value determined under rule 11UA or (2) fair market value of under lying assets whichever is higher.
Assessee was entitled to relief on the certificate granted by the prescribed authority u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act to the institution to which it donated the sum of money for claiming deduction under that section if it was subsisting and valid at the time the donation was made.
Watermarke Residency Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the present case, the TPO had benchmarked the transaction after treating the FCCDs as debt. This finding of TPO was based on Terms of issuance of FCCD and balance-sheets/ financials of the assessee as well as of it’s A.E, where both had mentioned FCCD as debt. We […]
