Sh. Mukesh Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessment order clearly shows that the AO has merely reproduced the modus operandi of the entry providers who booked bogus long term capital gains through penny stock companies. The show cause notice dated 2.12.2016 issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and the findings of the […]
Glory Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that before levy of the penalty A.O. has issued show cause notice Dated 20.06.2014 in all the years in which A.O. has mentioned both the limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act that assessee have concealed the particulars of your income […]
No satisfaction note have been recorded under section 153C of the I.T. Act. The A.O. passed the assessment order for the assessment year under appeal i.e., 2013-2014 under section 143(3) considering the preceding A.Y. 2012-2013 to the year of the search.
ITO Vs Shivani Gupta (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. in this case noted that assessee has sold the shares of Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., and claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act of the impugned amount. The A.O. merely declared this company to be penny stock company without bringing any evidence on record. Though […]
Shiv Kumar Nayyar Vs ACIT (ITAT New Delhi) lthough the assessee in the instant case has not complied to the statutory notice issued by the AO on 5th October, 2016 fixing the case for hearing on 25th October, 2018 which is the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, however, ultimately the […]
ITO Vs Momentum Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Reopening invalid When Time Limit for Scrutiny Pending from date of Revised Return Filed under Section 139(5) The first contention raised by assessee invoking rule 27 of the income tax appellate tribunal rules 1963, the contention raised that when the return of income is pending before the […]
ITAT Delhi rules on capital gains vs. business income in Amit Kumar Dey’s case. Details on bonus shares, sale transactions, and CBDT Circular 13.12.2005.
Asessee-bank had not deducted TDS under section 194A in respect of customers who had provided Form No. 15G and 15H as the prime responsibility relating to TDS deduction u/s 201 was of the recipient assessee to pay the tax directly once they filed From No. 15G/15H and any tax liability would be held as pending in recipient assessee’s cases and hence Section 201 of the Act could not be invoked as it was a recovery provision.
Tapas Kumar Mallick Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the Assessing Officer was carried away by the report of the Investigation Wing and the exparte Ad-Interim order of the SEBI. It can be seen that the entire assessment order has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting […]
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Delhi) The disputes pertain to the sole issue of interest under Section 244A of Income Tax Act, 1961 payable by Revenue to the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order Ld. CIT(A) expressed the view that interest should be given to the assessee under Section 244A of I.T. Act […]
