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 […]
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.
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
ACIT Vs Rajiv Nayar (ITAT Delhi) The AO, based on TDS information, assessed the corresponding professional income, on accrual basis, in the relevant year. Whereas the appellant’s contention is that since he has offered professional receipts for tax on cash/receipt basis as he follows cash system of accounting; therefore, charging of certain professional income on accrual […]
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi dated 28.5.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds
Assessment framed by AO on a non-existent company is a nullity in the eyes of law and void and the provisions of section 292 B cannot rescue the Income Tax Department: Sony India case
The present appeals have been filed by assessee against the order dated 21.07.2014 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi pertaining to the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the following common grounds.
Mere hand written paper could not be construed as books of account or documents in terms of section 153C and such documents having no signature of assessee-company or its employees could not be stated as belonging to assessee, so as to invoke section 153C.
Where assessee did not have any exempt income during the year and investments being held by it were in the nature of Strategic Investments, no disallowance under section 14A could be made.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
