Devender Kaur Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) In the instant case also, the AO has failed to conduct any enquiry and bring any material or fact to establish that the assessee has initially acquired the property in question at the time of Power of Attorney dated 3.1.2008 and subsequently sold the same vide sale deed dated 23.09.2009 […]
United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) A perusal of the propositions of law laid down in all these case-law, takes us to the conclusion that the ld. CIT(A) cannot touch or delve on any issue which does not arise from the order of assessment and which was outside the scope of or […]
Narendra Kumar Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record as well as order passed by the Tribunal in the main appeal. From the record, we found that the Tribunal vide consolidated order dated 18/12/2015 had dismissed the appeals of the Revenue as well […]
Shiv Kumar Nayyar Vs ACIT (ITAT New Delhi) lthough the assessee in the instant case has not complied to the statutory notice issued by the AO on 5th October, 2016 fixing the case for hearing on 25th October, 2018 which is the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, however, ultimately the […]
ITO Vs Momentum Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Reopening invalid When Time Limit for Scrutiny Pending from date of Revised Return Filed under Section 139(5) The first contention raised by assessee invoking rule 27 of the income tax appellate tribunal rules 1963, the contention raised that when the return of income is pending before the […]
Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the bare reading of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, it is mandatory on the part of the ld AO to duly mention in the reasons recorded itself as to whether there is any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing […]
D .V. Sadananda Gowda Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Admittedly, the addition of Rs.5 lakh has been made in the case of the assessee only on the basis of diary noting, statement of VP (Finance), RNSIL, and data retrieved by using forensic tools from seized computer server (data was deleted and the same was retrieved by […]
Seward Exports Pvt Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) t there are inconsistencies in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), where at first place, he has held that the Assessing Officer has not able to bring any example of specific disallowable expenses in case of loading and unloading expenses and under the similar facts pattern where […]
ITAT Delhi rules on capital gains vs. business income in Amit Kumar Dey’s case. Details on bonus shares, sale transactions, and CBDT Circular 13.12.2005.
Asessee-bank had not deducted TDS under section 194A in respect of customers who had provided Form No. 15G and 15H as the prime responsibility relating to TDS deduction u/s 201 was of the recipient assessee to pay the tax directly once they filed From No. 15G/15H and any tax liability would be held as pending in recipient assessee’s cases and hence Section 201 of the Act could not be invoked as it was a recovery provision.
