Shri Prashant Jayantilal Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The sole subject matter of present appeal is to adjudicate whether the assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on certain premises, which although forms part of block of assets,has been let out during the impugned AY & earned certain rental income which has been assessed as […]
Since objects of assessee were duly charitable in nature and there was no dispute as to genuineness of its activities, therefore, no registration could be denied under section 12AA merely on the basis that assessee was not carrying out activities for charitable purposes.
ITO Vs Mr. Deepak Talakshi Shah (ITAT Mumbai) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. has held that in case of sale of FSI/TDR rights by the assessee to the developers which have accrued in favour of the assessee following promulgation of Development Control Rules for […]
M/s. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case the penalty was levied for wrong claim of TDS in the return of income to the tune of Rs.3,48,120/- without offering the corresponding income to tax. In fact this TDS did not belong to the assessee but appeared in the form No. 26AS […]
Reassessment under section 147 on the basis of report of Investigation Wing without conducting further enquiry on the same was invalid and liable to be set aside.
Since CIT(A) had admitted additional evidences without complying with rule 46A which was fatal to sustaining of appellate order passed by CIT(A), therefore, the matter was restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 69 for Cash deposited in assessee’s bank account being Power of Attorney holder for sale of property belong to her father is justified in law?
Penalty under Section 271B was justified as assessee had not produced audit report in the prescribed format before AO and no explanation regarding the reasonable cause for not filing the audit report within the prescribed time limit was given.
DCIT Vs Sovereign Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Pune) A bare perusal of reasons for reopening would show that the Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 148 r.w.s. 147 after the expiry of four years to cover up his own follies. It is not the case of Revenue that the assessee has […]
Where assessee placed sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. to prove genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares such as copies of bank statement, Demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., and no material had been brought on record against assessee to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be sustained.
