Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
Shri Neeraj Goel Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Addition on account of alleged interest income is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the document does not mention the name of the assessee, does not bear the signature of the assesee, not in the handwriting of the assessee, documents has imply jottings of certain figures […]
It cannot be said that there was no escapement of income merely because tax was deducted at source on such income. When it is open under Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act for the AO to reassess the income on any issue which newly comes to his notice subsequent to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that mere wrong mentioning of the provision of law relating to the other issues in the reasons recorded would vitiate the proceedings.
DCIT Vs. S.V.S Prop mart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment order about the submissions made by the assessee that the commission was not received by the assessee company on account of dispute with the said party. Since the commission income has not been settled and crystallized, the same has […]
Mr. Tushar Kothari Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The intention behind enacting provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so distributed […]
ACIT Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years would apply for construction of new house from the date of transfer of long term capital asset. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has […]
Understand the scope of Section 153A in the case of Anurag Dalmia Vs DCIT. Analysis of unabated assessments, incriminating material, and additions made post-search.
Section 54F do not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of new house property, meaning thereby that the construction of house property may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee has surrendered the income, explained the manner in which it was earned and has paid the taxes due thereon. Therefore, the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in Section 271AAA for non-levy of penalty under the said provisions. Even otherwise also, it is an admitted fact that no search has taken place in the premises of the assessee and, therefore, provisions of Section 271AAA are not at all applicable.
Dharam Deep Public School Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 200A of the Act deals with processing of statement of tax deducted at source, whereas, section 234E of the Act deals with fee for default in furnishing statements.Iit was held that ‘intimation raising demand prior to 01/06/2015, u/s 200A of the Act, levying fee u/s […]
