ITAT imposes cost of Rs.25,000 for lackadaisical and non co-operative attitude of the assessee towards the quantum proceedings
Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee had used a pre arranged device in form of booking of bogus purchases of shares. This finding of the Assessing Officer is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any material on record. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,32,850/- made u/s 69C is hereby sustained.
In this case the valuation was done based on the statement of assessee’s son who is no way connected with assessee’s business except his occasional visits. Therefore, the statement of Sh. Rajat Jain has no evidentiary value.
We hold that since the receipt of interest is intrinsically linked to the primary activity of allotment of plots in the industrial park, it is hereby held that the interest is derived from the eligible business and thus, eligible for the purpose of direction u/s. 80 IA.
The narration of the professional fee bill by the payee is not at all material in rejecting the professional fee bill.
ITAT held that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(l)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty.
Additions made primarily on basis of oral evidence of third parties, without giving fair opportunity of hearing and right to cross-examine those parties to assessee not sustainable
Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty notice stating that, subsequently penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20.03.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 24.03.2017. The assessee was asked to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon you for concealment […]
Uma Strips Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT find that there is no live link presented by the AO between the material available with him i.e. the report of the investigation and to reason to belief that the assessee has tried to evade the assessment for the particular year in question. Simply […]
Intelsat Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that appellant being a resident of USA is covered by the beneficial provisions of DTAA between India and USA and accordingly, could not be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the issues involved in […]
