Reassessment was rightly opened under section 147 by AO as he had received fresh and tangible material being incriminating information from DGIT(Inv.) which in turn was based on incriminating information received from VAT authorities that assessee to be beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases and it was sufficient to reopen concluded assessment within the parameters of section 147.
Since assessee had given reasonable cause for availing loan in cash from his father within the meaning of section 271D, therefore, he would be out of the rigours of levy of penalty under section 271D and no penalty could be levied.
Where payments in the nature of royalty/fee for technical services (FTS) were made to non -residents, an order u/s. 201 passed after one year from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings were initiated was void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
Penalty under section 271AAB could not be imposed on assessee as old jewellery found in the locker of assessee and family members could not be treated as undisclosed for the purpose of levying penalty.
Since higher profit margin was earned by section 80-IC unit on account of lower cost of production due to various incentives and availability of raw material at lower rates, there was no reason to restrict assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80IC.
St. Barnabas Hospital Vs C.I.T (Exemption) (ITAT Ranchi) We note that the society trust was maintaining Pharmacy medical shop inside the hospital, which was for in-house consumption of medicines and treatment packages and for the urgent need of medicines to in-house patients. We note that the objects of the society were not doubted by the […]
Shri Vinod Kumar Chugh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Section 50C could be invoked only when sale had taken place during the year. As the sale of vacant plot by assessee stood completed in the year 1991, there was no question of invoking the provision of section 50C for taxing the long term capital gains. […]
DCIT Vs Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Assessee was entitled for deduction u/s. 54F on the capital gains arising on the sale of depreciable assets being commercial flats computed in the manner laid down in Section 50 read with Section 48, 49 and 45 and section 50 was a deemed provision, therefore, its […]
ITO Vs Sri. Harimurali Sreedhara Panickar (ITAT Cochin) In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, the only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land […]
