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 […]
Sanjeev Sarin Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In this case assessee has within stipulated period, made substantial investment towards purchase of new property and just because builder could not complete construction of residential house, claim of exemption under section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal […]
SF cannot be considered to be a payment made by the assessee airline. PSF is a payment made by the passenger which is only routed through the assessee airline. It is undisputed that the amount handed over by the assessee airline to the Airport Operators has also not been claimed as expenditure by the asssesee in its books of account.
No addition could have been made u/s 68 of the Act in view of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search to which this impugned addition could be related.
