Undisputedly, the assessee has obtained the tax audit report on 10th September 2013, i.e., much before the due date of filing of return of income. However, as stated by the assessee, due to lack of clarity and misinterpretation of the Circular issued by the Board, the assessee did not filed tax audit report before the due date of return of income. In our view, the aforesaid explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be plausible, therefore, benefit of doubt can be given to the assessee
Statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same were backed by credible evidences. Assessee could not prove the source and nature of transactions, the stated amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 and the original return was processed u/s 143(1) and the only requirement in law to trigger assessment was that AO had certain reasons to believe that certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee.
ITO Vs Shri Habib Khan (ITAT Jaipur) The exception 10(e) of of Circular no. 03 of 2018 dated 20-08.2018 which has been referred by the ld DR relates to cases where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI/ ED/ DRI/ SFIO/ Directorate General […]
Shri Ramphal Hooda Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Whether the exemption under Section 54F is extendable to the assessee for the total consideration paid by him, for the purchase of the new asset (the residential property) in the joint name or the exemption would be entitled to the extent of the share of the assessee in […]
Assessee-sole proprietor was not eligible for a tax deduction for his own education expenses as the same could not be treated as business expenses and the point in time when the expenditure was incurred, the business of the assessee was not set up.
Shakti Hormann Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We find that the assessee is not benefitting in any way by not filing the appeal in time before the Tribunal. The assessee has explained the reasons as misplacement of papers by one of the office staff. This is one of the possible reasons for not being […]
Jupudi Venkateswara Rao Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Ld.CIT(A) has given a clear finding that the assessee failed to produce the purchases book, stock register etc to verify the purchases or the unaccounted sales, the assessee has taken a different stand before the ITAT and argued that the difference was not related to purchase and sales […]
Technimont Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is only elementary that merely because a section is amended or even substituted, whether by repeal of the legislation itself or by amendment in the legislation, the notifications, circulars and instructions issued therein do not cease to hold good. Section 297(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically […]
Kaybee Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it […]
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the additions on account of long term capital gains arising from transfer of land and also an addition on account of short term capital gains arising from transfer of building.
