If AO was not satisfied regarding transaction relating to the cash deposited by partner whose identity was not in doubt and assessee had furnished all the relevant documents, then addition could have been made in the hands of said partner and not in the hands of the assessee.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue, the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest under section 234B is not leviable in respect of payments to the non-resident assessee being subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) after filing of the return of the Assessee, by way of letter, makes the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 bad in law.
For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue had to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the LD. PCIT to conduct such inquiry.
M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Pr. C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee had filed various replies to the ld. PCIT in response to notice u/s of the Act 263 of the Act stating that all the issues raised by the PCIT have been examined by the AO during the course of assessment. The PCIT has […]
Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that advance given by a company to its Director/ substantial shareholder cannot be considered as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Rule 17 of order V of CPC mandates that an independent local person be the witness of service through affixture and for the purpose of having been associated with the identification of the place. However a perusal of the affixture report shows that there was no independent local person as a witness and there is no evidence that anyone identified the place as belonging to the assessee before such affixture.
While dismissing a departmental appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G bench held that the State Bank of India (SBI) s not bound to deduct tax at source on site restoration fund of ONGC and the interest paid on such fund.
The New Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on yesterday ruled that the amount received as subsidy from the State Government under Capital Investment subsidy is not taxable under the Income Tax Act as it is capital in nature.
Section 273B of the Act provides that in case of a reasonable cause, penalty otherwise exigible, inter alia, u/s 271C of the Act, cannot be imposed.
