Sanjaykumar Gangaram Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Return not filed, however, cash deposit was found in AIR. Accordingly, AO issued notice u/s 148. Addition on cash deposited in bank account, opened with the assessee’s wife, is sustainable. Facts- The assessee is an individual. For AY 2006-2007, assessee has not filed a ROI. Annual Information Return […]
ITAT Ahmedabad cancels penalty on Anisha R. Dhanani. Unexplained cash credit addition lacked accurate particulars. Bona-fide explanation considered.
Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT/ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Facts- Primarily three issues involved in these cross appeals are – (i) relating to transfer pricing adjustment made on account of determination of Arm’s Length Price of the reimbursement made by the assessee to its Associate Enterprise (AE) in lieu of cost sharing agreement entered into with […]
Assessee contended that CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 5,000 for failure to file return of income in response to the notice issued under section 148.
ITO Vs Kanubhai M. Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) Pune Tribunal in the case of Dilip Battu Karanjule v. ITO [2016] 74 taxmann.com 12 (Pune – Trib.) held that where assessee identified land on behalf of existing and known persons and entire money towards purchase of land had been financed by such persons to whom land was ultimately […]
DCIT Vs Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) Facts- The assessee Company is mainly engaged in the manufacture of drugs & pharmaceuticals. The assessee Company filed ROI on 31.10.2001 declaring income from house property Rs.9,036/-, income from other sources Rs.1,25,40,914/- and business loss of Rs.10,26,63,568/-. AO made addition in respect of buying commission to Teknoserve […]
Expenditure on maintenance, back-up and support services to existing hardware and software is revenue in nature, and therefore allow the expenditure as revenue in nature.
Jurisdiction of AO in cases where section 143(2) notices issued for limited scrutiny is confined to claims AO set out in notice
There is no specific authority who has been designated as being the ‘competent authority’ to measure distance between the land sold and the municipal limits.
Revenue cannot make the additions under Section 69A for the reason that assessee has not cooperated with the department.
