Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
Sukhdev Singh Kang Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) it is the claim of the ld A.R, that as the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee was undeniably vested with the Income Tax Officer, Nakodar, therefore, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara who had no jurisdiction over his case had clearly traversed beyond his jurisdiction and […]
DCIT Vs Sidhanath Enterprise (ITAT Rajkot) The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of cash deposits of Rs. 224.53,23,993/-. in the bank account of the assessee, noting that identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the assessee itself in a writ petition filed by the […]
Heera Kerala Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) After hearing the rival submissions we observe from the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act that there was an addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.71,66,000/-which has been set off from the returned loss […]
ITAT held that by acquiring business rights along with tangible assets, the assessee got an up and running business and the specified intangible assets acquired under slump sale agreement are in the nature of any other business or commercial rights of a similar nature on which depreciation is allowable.
ITAT held that so far as cash receipt of by assessee from his father’s proprietary firm is concerned, the provisions of section 269SS do not stand attracted.
ITAT Held that discount on issue of ESOP is allowable as deduction under the head Profits & Gains of Business or Profession.
Mere typographical error of the account number of the bank account does not mean that the assessee has not disclosed proper information about the bank account details. Addition u/s 69A unsustainable
As per mercantile system of accounting, provision for expenses is an ascertained liability and the same is eligible for deduction while computing total income.
Held that assessee had failed to satisfy the conditions precedent to claim as revenue expenditure, as the expenditure was incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, the claim cannot be allowed as deduction
