“As evident from a plain look at the ground of appeal, the actual grievance of the appellant is not on merits but on the legal issue regarding limitations on the powers of the CIT(A) on the ground that post 1st June 2001
In the case of Cardinal Drugs Pvt Ltd.Hon’ble ITAT has observed that there was no scope for the A.O. to have resorted to the provision of Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the income of the assessee.by stating as under:- The A.O. on long drawn process of reasoning should not have passed the order under Section154 of the Act. The issue raised by the A.O. in proceeding under Section 154 of the Act is highly debatable which requires the issue to be reconsidered by the A.O.about applicability of the provision of Section 115JB of the Act which was notraised by the A.O. in assessment or appellate proceedings.
Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search
Hon’ble ITAT Agra in the case of ACIT V/s. Kalyani Chaturvedi held that Re-appreciation of seized material in subsequent proceedings by the AO is unjustified and quashed the Re-assessment Order. Hon’ble ITAT has held as under
Hon,ble ITAT Agra has held in the case of ACIT Vs. Sunil C Gupta that Cash seized to be adjusted against advance tax liability. Explanation-2 to Section 132B of the Act enacted with effect from 1st June 2013. Hon’ble ITAT has upheld the observations of ld CIT(A) which are as under
The issue is covered against the revenue by the Special Bench decision in Rajeev Sureshbahi Gajwani’s case (supra) and this decision binds this division bench. The theory of differentiation vs discrimination was relevant, relevant if it was, only for the India US tax treaty
Section 50C is not final determination to prove that it is a case of escapement of income. The report of approved valuer may give estimated figure on the basis of facts of each case. Therefore, on mere applicability of section 50C would not disclose any escapement of income in the facts and circumstances of the case.
As regards assessee’s submission that the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) will not come into play in this case because the entire testing process is automated, it is well settled that when no human intervention is involved in any services, such services cannot be treated to be of the nature which can be covered by the scope of section 9(1)(vii).
Issue – Disallowance of Rs 52,07,883, in respect of leather testing charges paid to TUV Product Und Umwelt GmbH – a tax resident of Germany, under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge his tax withholding obligations in respect of the same.
The AO noted in the assessment order that the assessee society is running maternity hospital and all services pertaining to maternity only. Maternity is a natural process and could not be termed as illness or disease. Giving birth and at that time hospital providing services for delivery could not be said to be providing any treatment for illness or mental defectiveness.
