As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated.
Vidya Education Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The operative words in Section 23(1)(a) are the sum, for which, the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year. These words provide a specific direction to the Revenue for determining the fair rent. The A.O. having regard to the aforesaid provisions is expected to make […]
Pramod Kumar Lodha Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Decision of the AO holding the transaction as bogus and denying the claim of long term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is based on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the ITO […]
ITAT held that since the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued prior to the furnishing of return by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said notice deserves to be quashed. We, therefore, quash the reassessment framed by the AO.
Denial of assessee’s claim under section 10(38) on the basis of suspicion without any cogent material to show that the assessee had brought back its own unaccounted income in the shape of long-term capital gain was not justified.
AO has remained sited with folded hands and has not made any independent enquiry from concerned AO of share holder company which itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. On basis of this I have no hesitation to delete the additions of Rs 25,00,000 and Rs 45,000 made u/s 68
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane dated 13.07.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2010-11
ITO Vs. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon’ble […]
This appeal by the revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-20, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No.1044/CIT(A)-20/CC-1(1)/15-16 dated 25.07.2016 against the order passed by the ACIT, CC-1(1), Kolkata
Betterman Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs I.T.O. (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case the assessee has acquired certain fixed assets on lease and has charged depreciation on the same. The assets being the godown building, office building, power house building, Weigh Bridge room and machinery. The ld. AO on the basis of the statement made by […]
