Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case the notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee which is not the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. As per Section 153A, simple notice has to be given to the assessee. Thus, the contention of the Ld. […]
AO was not justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee without specifying the grounds in the penalty notice as the same could not be construed as a mere technical error
When TDS returns/statements had been filed by assessee for each quarter online and orders had been served upon assessee online for payment of the late fees, assessee was not justified in contending that it had not received any communication in respect of late fee imposed under section 234E neither any such communication came to the knowledge prior to the notice of outstanding demand issued by DCIT (TDS).
Sanraj Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, where both the assessment order and show cause notice failed to state the specific charge of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.20 […]
Where Any Incriminating Material Was Not Found During The Course Of Search, The Completed Assessments Could Not Be Opened: Varun Beverages Appeal
DCIT Vs M/S Shyam Sunder Khemka (ITAT Delhi) Assessee being a manufacturer substantial expansion was carried out in asst. yr. 2008-09 hence, initial assessment year would be refixed 2008-09 and assessee would be eligible to claim 100% deduction for next five assessment years and thereafter 25% for next 5 assessment years subject to restriction imposed […]
Where assessee-school had provided transport facility by charging separate fee, the transportation activity being incidental to achieve the main object of the assessee-trust, i.e., providing education could not be considered as business activity, so as to deny exemption under section 11 because the transport facility was not provided to outsiders and was confined only to the students and staff of the assessee.
Framing of an assessment against a non-existent amalgamating entity was not procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect not covered under section 292B, therefore, assessment made by AO was nullity in the eyes of law and the same was liable to be quashed.
In present case there are evidences and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investment in the form of share application money.
RBM Pati Joint Venture Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) An insight over the penalty order, we find that the penalty was initiated on account of loss claimed by the appellant on sale of assets, even though, that particular block of assets had not been exhausted. We do not find any justification to discard the findings reached […]
