Interest was payable under Section 234C on default in payment of advance tax installment on returned income, and not on assessed income.
Once an assessee discharged its burden, then burden shifts to AO to prove otherwise that said transaction was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, AO had not brought on record any evidence to prove that said sum was undisclosed income of assessee. Therefore, AO was completely erred in making additions towards unsecured loans received from three companies of assessee group.
Jayesh Shantilal Vira Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Addition u/s 10(38) on alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) deleted where no further verification made by AO except solely reliance on information from investigation wing. ITAT held that the long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd. is not […]
Ranuj Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee has filed return of income declaring total income at Rs.32,01,050/-which was processed by the CPC, Bangalore under section 143(1) and assessed at Rs.37,66,259/-. In the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), the ld.AO has taken the income of Rs.37,66,259/- assessed under section 143(1) by the CPC […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling on Anusmriti Sarkar vs ITO case. Analysis of LTCG from Kailash Auto Finance Scrip, added without independent verification. Get insights into key decisions.
In present facts of the case, there were issues pertaining to disallowance under Section 40A(3); disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D; short deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia); undisclosed sales/difference in stock valuations and deduction u/s 80IB (11A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these issues have gone into the favour of the Appellant/ Assessee, most of them were covered by the Assessee’s own previous case serving best precedents.
Vodafone India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Where assesse engaged in business of providing mobile telephone services, sold prepaid vouchers to its distributors at a rate lower than its face value, difference between face value and selling price of prepaid voucher could not be regarded as commission requiring deduction of tax at source under section […]
Smt. Yannaben Anilbhai Jethani Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We find that the issue for our consideration is, whether penalty initiated and levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, without clearly specifying particular default relates concealment of wealth and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid in law ? The contention of the assessee that […]
ACIT Vs Chironji Lal Shivhare (ITAT Agra) During the course of hearing on 23/2/2021 it was informed by the Ld.AR for the assessee that the assessee has expired in the month of November 2020, therefore he will not be able to argue the matter and sought time to bring on record the Legal Heirs, death […]
M/s. Chandri Papers and Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that assessee had taken property on lease for the purpose of its business. The said property is situated at Lonavala. The said property belongs to the wife of director of the assessee company. The property has been taken on lease based […]
