Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Reasons recorded by the AO for formation of belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment are based on two counts. One, the assessee has made bogus purchases and the second, that the purchases are not verifiable as the as the assessee has not filed the […]
The issue under consideration is whether AO can issue notice under section 148 for re-assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2)?
Karan Bhalla Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has given the details of source of the cash which are reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).However no supporting documents have been filed. The assessee did not produce any independent evidence in support of cash flow statement. No evidence of any amount is received on […]
Addition made by AO during the assessment proceedings on the basis of unaccounted sales cannot be regarded as the turnover for the purpose of section 44AB of the Act because the documents relied upon by AO are neither the part of books of account nor would substitute the books of account or constitute the books of account of the assessee regularly maintained.
Where assessee failed to show that delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to any factors which were beyond its control, plea raised by assessee for condoning the delay in filing appeal was dismissed.
ITO Vs Smt. Uma Dnyanoba Bhintade (ITAT Pune) The limited issue which arises in the present appeal filed by Revenue is against directions of CIT(A) in allowing the benefit claimed under section 54B of the Act by Assessing Officer, in case the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the said section. Admittedly, […]
Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since assessee has been consistently disclosing the address to the Revenue Department for the purpose of service and communication at 3, Tansen Marg, Bengali Market, New Delhi and this fact was also admitted by the A.O, therefore, there was no question of service of the notice […]
Court concurs with the CIT(A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation on purchase of New Weaving Looms allowed in case of assessee?
The issue under consideration is whether Non-furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment made the entire assessment u/s 147 invalid in law?
