ITAT Pune held that addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Income Tax Act sustainable as assessee failed to prove that the developer had agreed to share its developed area; which in turn, had come to the assessee from his father by way of nomination.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as the additional evidence produced clearly indicates that company has put to use the windmill turbine in the year, depreciation on the same is available.
ITAT Kolkata held that service tax collected by the assessee on the amount paid to it for rendering the services is not to be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of computing the presumptive income of the assessee u/s. 44BBA of the Income Tax Act.
R.P. Polypacks Pvt. Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In brief, the issue according to the ld. Commissioner is that the assessee had made provision of Excise Duty, which was not an allowable expenditure and ld. Assessing Officer has erred in accepting this claim of the assessee in an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of […]
Dinesh Babu Saxena Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As against the penalty order dated 30/09/2016, the assessee has preferred the Appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of more than 12 months. It is the specific case of the assessee before the CIT(A) that the assessee has not received any notice u/s 271(1)(c) or the order […]
Euro Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We noticed that the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of generalised information given by investigation wing that M/s Bhanwarlal Jain group is engaged in the business of providing accommodation sales bills without actually supplying the goods. There is no material on record […]
ITAT Pune remands to CIT(A) for discrepancy issue in Sanjay Dayal vs ITO. Assessee’s appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Vishnunarayan R. Modani Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has not furnished any material to show that the share transactions entered by him are genuine transactions. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the capital gain of Rs.136,812/- and Rs.150,575/- as income under the head ‘income from other […]
Sunita Chaudhry Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that SEBI vide interim order dated 19/12/2014 and 11/08/2015, inter-alia, restrained 154 entities, including the assessee, from accessing the securities market and buying, selling or dealing in securities, either directly or indirectly, in any manner, till further directions, pending investigation in the script of in case of […]
ACIT Vs Joseph Selvakumar Selvan (ITAT Chennai) Upon careful consideration, it could be gathered that the return of income was already scrutinized u/s 143(3) and the issue of computation of capital gain was duly examined by Ld. AO. The requisite queries were raised by Ld. AO which were duly replied by the assessee along with […]
