Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Cochin) In the present case, there were no affidavits from the concerned persons who are handling the impugned issues and who are required to take proper steps in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In our opinion, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench is without doubt binding upon […]
DCIT Vs. M/s. Erawat Infotech Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the information is specific having detail of value of the amount of accommodation entry taken, the instrument and date through which entry was taken, name and account number of the entry provider were available before the Assessing Officer and thus we cannot hold the information […]
Shyam Sunder Duggal Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,77,000/- made by the AO by making disallowance of fees paid to Portfolio Managers. As is clear from the record that the assessee paid Rs. 7,77,744/- to PMS providers and […]
CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction
Mahavir Jhanwar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and […]
Shri Pawan S. Jalan Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) If we consider the explanation of the assessee filed before the ld.CIT(A), which has been partly reproduced in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on page no.3, then it would reveal that chief accountant of the company was ill and failed to hand over assessment order to the […]
Since all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was satisfied by assessee and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him, therefore, without doing so, the addition made by AO based on conjectures and surmises could not be justified.
The assessee had complied with conditions for grant of deduction under sections 54B inasmuch as he has utilised, within a period of two years from the date of transfer of capital asset, the capital gain in purchasing another land for being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, mere fact that assessee did not get legal title to the land could not be ground to deny benefit of deduction under sections 54B.
Once the financial statements were ratified by the shareholders, assessee had no right to modify the profit declared as per Companies Act and adopt differently for the purpose of MAT provisions. Therefore, the profit adopted by the company in the AGM overlooking the qualification of auditor was the final book profit for the purpose of section 115JB, assessee could not alter the same by claiming that it had not followed certain Accounting Standards.
M/s Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Reopening of assessment by AO on basis of report of Investigation Wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of share capital/premium/loan during the financial year was not justified as AO had not carried out any further examination and analysis in […]
