Merely because assessment order is cryptic one without discussing in detail nature of enquiry conducted and evidences furnished by assessee, it cannot be said that order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue.
Overlooking the mandatory provision of law in the original assessment is apparent mistake of law which is rectifiable under section 154.
The amount once invested in the capital gain scheme cannot be brought to tax in the year of investment itself without considering the utilization within the period allowed under the said scheme.
.In the reason for delay in filing the appeal the appellant has stated that Advocate was busy in filing the GST returns and forgot to file the said appeal.
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.
