CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the same has been initiated on a non-existing entity and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio.
Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is a settled issue that the seized papers seized from the premises of Jai Corp Group and others cannot be relied upon for making additions in the hands of the land aggregators whose names appeared in the said documents. It is not the case of the […]
Assessee was justified in following exclusive method of accounting for valuation of closing stock as entire exercise was tax neutral and there was no impact on the profitability of assessee due to method of accounting followed.
Sahara States – Hyderabad Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Hyderabad) As rightly observed by the Tribunal, though the assessee has completed the project by 31.03.2008 and had requested the local authorities for issuance of completion certificate since there was no provision under the GHMC Act of 1985 for issuance of completion certificate, the same was not […]
Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Where the AO failed to discharge its obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion, it is also the obligation of the first appellate authority and indeed that of ITAT to have ensured that effective inquiry is carried out on the subject […]
ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chandigarh) Where sufficient own interest free funds are available with the assessee, the presumption arises that the assessee had utilised those funds for the purpose of making interest free non business advances. Thus in very clear terms the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles […]
DCIT Vs Pradeep Aggarwal (ITAT Delhi) Since the assessee in the instant case has surrendered additional income and paid the taxes due thereon and no specific query was raised by the search party at the time of search to substantiate the manner of earning such income, therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High […]
Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO.
Since AO made addition under section 153 on the basis of documents seized in case of third party but without mentioning of assesse’s name in any legal paper and non-establishment of relationship with searched party, therefore, the same was invalid.
M/s Deepak Spinners Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the issue under consideration whether the subsidy received under TUF scheme is a capital receipt or revenue receipt. The ld. CIT(A) treated it as part of fixed assets and held that said subsidy should be reduced from the cost of fixed assets. Held by […]
