The reassessment proceedings were invalid, inasmuch as, the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Gurgaon, who is not vested with the jurisdiction over the appellant.
When reassessment proceedings were started and ended by passing a reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, then original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and appeal against that order does not survive for adjudication and the same was correctly dismissed by the CIT(A).
Mohini Originals v. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Facts of the Case The Assessee was an EOU filed its return of income, where AO observed that they have claimed exemption under section 10B which was allowed at the time of Assessment. Deduction on duty drawback was also allowed. However, in the proceedings for the next year A.O. […]
In the present case, AO come to know about cash deposit of Rs.13.01 Lac by the assessee through AIR Information. On being called upon to explain the source of such cash deposit, assessee submitted that he has inherited a sum of Rs.13 lac from his mother who has died on 14-08-2006 and produced copy of her income tax return,
The predominant activities of the centre was not to earn income but to provide facilities for disseminating or exchanging knowledge as per the object of the society The dominant object of the assessee is definitely for the well being of public at large by organizing various seminars for
According to the provisions of section 12AA of the I.T. Act, the Commissioner, on the receipt of Application for registration of a trust or institution shall (a) call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust
However, it is a well-settled proposition that the quantum of penalty proceedings are separate proceedings and penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that the assessee did not challenge or agitate the issue before higher forum and accepted the disallowance made by the AO.
Whether assessment related to pre-liquidation period cannot be done ex-parte during the period of liquidation without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to ex-management?
Though in these case the appeal in quantum was decided in favour of the assessee and thereby penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, there are also cases where the appeal in quantum was decided by Tribunal against the assessee and the appeal was pending before High Court for disposal but High Court had admitted the appeal, even in that case, it was decided by Delhi Tribunal that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied being debatable issue
To make any disallowance under section 40A(3), it is a precondition that the assessee must have claimed deduction, directly or indirectly, for which payment is made in cash exceeding the specified limit.
