ITAT Ahmedabad held that there was delay in filing statement in Form 24Q/ 26Q due to heavy loss incurred by assessee. However, the same was filed before issuance of show cause notice and late payment of TDS was done along with interest. Hence, it shows that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for late filing of TDS return and hence penalty not leviable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once similar Long Term Capital Gain offered and exemption claimed by the co-owner is already accepted by the revenue, another co-owner (assessee) entitled for similar relief.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the source and genuineness of receipt of shares from brother in USA is proved, addition of the same is unsustainable in terms of explanation 2 to section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Also, there is no need for any ‘occasion’ for receipt of such gift from the brother.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that consideration received by the assessee, being an entry provider, as accommodation entry cannot be taxed entirely as business income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that investment made in gold ornaments was duly recorded in the books of accounts and also reflected in the block of assets. Hence, such investment cannot be stated to be remained unexplained.
C.C.E. & S.T. Vs Modest Infrastructure Ltd (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Whether the duty free material found during the search of the premises of M/s Modest at Warehouse- 2 can be considered as lying outside the bonded warehouse and registered premises of M/s Modest, consequently liable for payment of custom duty as proposed in the show cause […]
Kothari Brothers Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee submitted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed in respect of rejection of rectification application and thereby disallowance of claim for carry forward losses in revised return needs to be looked into. The original return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 was filed on 24.11.2007 declaring total […]
Umeshkuamr Harilal Shah Vs ITO (TDS) (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is undisputed fact that the assessee is not a manufacturer and the scrap which was sold by the assessee was not from the manufacturing activity. The decision of the Special Bench in case of Bharti Auto Product (supra) was observed that scrap means wasted which is […]
PCIT has given his own observation which amounts to review and change of opinion or review while exercising Section 263 is not permitted by the Income Tax Statute. Thus, the PCIT was not right in exercising Section 263 in assessee’s case.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption under section 10 of the Income Tax Act not available as the said land was non-agricultural land as it failed to fulfil twin conditions for qualifying as agricultural land.
