ACIT Vs Dr. P. S. Prasad (ITAT Hyderabad) Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterated the Revenue’s foregoing pleadings that the issuance of Section 143(2) notice is nowhere mandatory in Section 153A proceedings initiated in furtherance to a search in light of the various case law cited therein. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant grievance since […]
Mohd Zaheeruddin Zeeshan Ayub Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Learned Counsel contended during the course of hearing that this assessee is drawing salary income on regular basis and it was only in the impugned assessment year that he had carried out corresponding transactions requiring audit report u/s.44AB of the Act. He therefore pleaded assessee’s ignorance only […]
Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) It is an admitted factual position that this assessee is assessed and lives in Hyderabad whereas all the corresponding loan creditors parties are from Kolkata only. And that too, there is not even a single loan agreement between the assessee and the said parties, reflecting the terms of […]
ACIT Vs S. Mohan Kumar (ITAT Chennai) Conclusion: Assessee failed to file necessary evidence to establish credits appearing in the names of above two persons in the books of account of the assessee as genuine transactions, therefore, addition of unexplained credits was rightly justified. Held: AO made additions towards credits on the ground that the […]
What cannot be done u/s. 154 of the Act on the ground of debatability ,cannot be done u/s. 143(1) of the Act to the assessee’s claim on which two views are possible A debatable issue cannot be a subject matter of adjustment u/s. 143(1) of the Act.
Shivalic Academy Society Vs CIT (E) (ITAT Delhi) Settled position of law is that for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u./s. 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. If the Revisional authority […]
The reasons recorded in the instant case are vague and based on un-substantive reasoning, uncorroborated material and lack of evidence and hence as per decisions of the jurisdictional High Court referred above, the reasons referred above tantamount to be based on borrowed satisfaction and according to our considered view, does not sound valid reasons in the eyes of law, for reopening of the case.
Ld. FAA was correct in following the ratio laid by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Jatia Investment Co. Ltd. V. CIT(1994) 206 ITR 718 (Cal), that fictitious entry not backed up by funds may not be taxable as Cash Credit.
The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum : vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief in granting the indulgence and to the party seeking relief.
Lufthansa German Airlines Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The question is whether the User Development Fee (UDF) collection charges paid by AAI to the Lufthansa German Airlines (Assessee) is income derived from operation of aircraft not liable to tax in India as per Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany. As the effective management of […]
