Challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called as “the learned CIT (A)’) in Appeal No.119 of 2011-12 dated 13.08.2014, assessee preferred this appeal.
We find that DJ had admitted of issuing bogus bills.But, nowhere he had admitted that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. In our opinion, there is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party
When the CIT is satisfied with the reasons given by the Assessing Officer, he in not once again give separate reasons or repeat the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and then give his approval for the same.
ITO Vs Tarun Sales (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that Since no dealer or sub-dealer was appointed either by BSNL or by the assessee, for the purpose of marketing the products and/or service of the BSNL, the entire sales were to customers, either directly or through shopkeepers, who rendered services to the customers. The entire sales […]
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Aa in treating the income of Rs. 12,00,000/- received towards service charges under the head ‘income from house property
These are two appeals by two assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, for the AY. 2009-10. Since common issues are involved in both of these appeals, these are heard together and decided by this common order
Main arguments of the assessee that the addition and adjustment made to the total income are to be based only on incriminating material found during the course of search fails, then only the other issues in the appeal of the revenue as well as of the assessee will survive.
These are the appeals filed by the different assessees against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A) Ajmer dated 05/10/2017 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the matter of order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short
Where assessee- trust was earning profit up to 45% from its educational activities, it was clearly proved that it was existed for profit because profit up to 15% could be said reasonable and legitimate, hence, addition was rightly made.
DCIT Vs M/s. Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT held that the Commission income in the hands of foreign agent is not chargeable to tax in India in the given facts & circumstances and Once an income is not chargeable to tax in India then the question of deducting TDS under the provision of […]
