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 the […]
Receipts of advance against sale of commercial space is not a receipt in the nature of loan or advance as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which attracts the provisions of in that section as the said advance is in the nature of business advance which did not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
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 cheque to assessee. The same were bogus entries received by assessee in the name of sale of shares and addition was rightly made by AO under section 68.
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 […]
Shri Anoop Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the stay petition and stated that assessee has obtained the bogus long-term capital gain in penny stock and therefore it does not deserve stay of demand. He further submitted that there are equal numbers of judicial precedent against the assessee and […]
In the absence of any reasonable cause for failure of assessee in furnishing the information called for by the AO, penalty under section 271(1)(b) was rightly levied by AO for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1).
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 under section 153A.
Where the impounded documents had been received by AO on 29-1-2014 and six assessment years under section 153C in case of assessee would be assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14, therefore, initiation of proceedings under section 153C by AO for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12, was illegal and not sustainable in law.
Parnami Pump & Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Bogus Purchases Cannot Be Wholly Disallowed Without Disallowing Sales Only Gross Profit (GP) Rate Should Be Added as Undisclosed Income We find that the Assessing Officer had issued summons u/s.131 to the proprietor of the said entity from whom assessee has made purchases, but that […]
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.
