Non-response to notice is because of disputes between Partners & Inadequate time to reply, so levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) deleted.
Held that cash withdrawn by the assessee from the bank was much more than the amount deposited due to demonetization. Further, there is no findings by the authorities that this cash available with the assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose. Hence, addition u/s 69A unsustainable
Sudhir Kumar Tiwari Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) It is apparent that the Assessing Officer initially initiated the scrutiny proceedings to examine the cash deposit of Rs. 18,00,000/- during the demonetization period. However, on verification of the bank account as well as the reply of the assessee as well as bank, the Assessing Officer found that […]
Think and Learn Private Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer, deciding on an issue pending before the AAR, in contravention of the mandate laid down in Section 245R(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not make the entire assessment order void. Held: PCIT, under section 263 […]
Opel paper Mills Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The learned CIT appeal noted that the major items of the expenditure is a purchase of paper from the sister company specialty papers Ltd amounting to ₹ 888,827,942/–. These transactions were doubted by the learned assessing officer during the remand proceedings as the purchases are transacted only […]
Sunny Rock Estates & Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Income earned during the year by the assessee is on inter-corporate deposit with Williamson Services Ltd. as interest income. We also note that assessee has consistently reported its earning of interest income from ICDs, as business income which has been accepted by the Department […]
Held that the training fee paid by the assessee to a professional trainer doesn’t amount to Fees for Technical Services and hence TDS u/s 195 not deductible
Held that show cause notice to initiate proceedings u/s. 201(1) is issued on 20.11.2012 which is beyond four years with respect to assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09. Accordingly, interest levied u/s 201(1A) unsustainable.
Reasonable quantum of cash available out of past savings should be considered as being available to assessee to explain source of cash deposited in bank
Bappanalli Brothers Vs ACIT (ITAT Banglore) CIT(A) concluded that the payments were not made directly to the cultivator and therefore the Assessee has not proved existence of circumstances set out in Rule 6DD(e) of the rules. ITAT held that The reasons given by the CIT(A) for treating the payment in question not to the Agriculturists […]
