DCIT Vs. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has admittedly sold the agricultural land as it is so there were no intention to do any business activity, therefore, period of holding would not be relevant. The intention of the assessee is therefore clear that assessee purchased the agricultural land and sold ...

Assesssee did not furnish PAN and Bank statements or any of the directors of investor companies merely showing that transactions were carried out through banking channel was not sufficient to prove genuineness of transaction in the matter. When investors having nil income had deposited cash in their bank account immediately before giving ...

It is an admitted fact that except jewellery which remained duly explained, no material much less incriminating material was found during search, therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material recovered during search assessment having remained unabated as on date of search could not be interfered with while framing assessment und...

AGR Matthey of Western Australia Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) From the records it can be seen that there is no interest credit, since within a day or two of usance of letter of credit by PEC Ltd’s bank to the Assessee, letter of credit stands discounted by the Assessee with ANZ Bank of Australia. The […]...

Approval given by approving authority for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without due application of mind and in mechanical manner - reassessment should be quashed....

The only issue in the appeal is the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of Rs.63,03,005/- which is more th...

Line of judicial view is that the Revenue cannot be permitted to contend that there is a CBDT instruction No. 03/2010 dated 23/3/2010 to the contrary. No CBDT circular or instruction can be contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, even subsequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court....

Mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon AO who otherwise was not the AO of assessee, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was quashed and since  reopening was quashed,  subsequent orders passed on account of such reopening were also quashed....

Making of wrong claim due to inadvertent clerical error committed by Chartered Accountant could not be classified as furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) when assessee had voluntarily filed revised computation and AO had completed assessment on the basis of details furnished by assessee....

The onetime payment of the annual rent as per the lease deed is rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was not right in holding that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature....