The inability to meet the contractual obligation by the assessee cannot be termed as an offence or infraction of law so as to deny the claim of the assessee by invoking the expression 1 to sec 37(1) of the Act.
Where AO did not pass any speaking order in disposing of assessee|s objections against notice under section 148, the assessment order passed subsequent to such notice, would be considered as bad in law and hence, the same was liable to be quashed.
M/s Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) In the affidavit, the main reason cited by the assessee for the delay is that the copy of appellate order was received by the counsel who appeared before the Ld CIT(A), but the counsel never informed the assessee about the disposal of the appeal by Ld […]
Cynthia Ramona Chellappa Vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai) The issue under consideration is whether the amount received through the Will of God-Mother is eligible for exemption u/s 56(2)(vii)? ITAT states that a perusal of the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) shows that any amount received by an individual without consideration and the aggregate value exceeds 50,000, the […]
Shyam Bihari Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards addition of Rs. 20,38,472/- on account of payment of interest to bank which the assessee has mentioned in the profit and loss account. The revenue authorities have noticed that a loan (liability) of Rs. 1,11,73,554/- against which the assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 20,38,472/- and […]
TDS return filed beyond time cannot be declared as non est in law and that the CIT(A) does not have powers of enhancement in an appeal against an order under section 200A. The CIT(A) cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal, which was as to whether fee under section 234E can be levied or not; and not the question, whether the return of TDS filed by the assessee was non est in law? The CIT(A) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law.
Aramark India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) case discusses the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, citing non-existing asset and lack of enduring benefit.
No enquiries were conducted by the AO/learned CIT(A) even during appellate/remand proceedings . The books of accounts were not rejected by authorities below nor any defect is pointed out by the AO/learned CIT(A) in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. There is no allegation by Revenue that the assessee claimed any bogus expenses or any attempt is made to defraud Revenue. Under these circumstances keeping in view factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that aforesaid adhoc disallowance of expenses under various heads of expenses to the tune of 10% of the total expenses incurred by the assessee under these heads of expenses is not warranted
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 by considering the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Penalty U/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable for failure to get accounts audited where the turnover / gross receipts exceeds the prescribed limit. Many times it happens that the turnover as per the regular books of accounts remains under the prescribed limit and as such the assessee do not gets the accounts audited U/s. 44AB.
