Dashrathbhai G. Patel Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Unlawful reference u/s Sec 142A in absence of tangible material and adopting FMV under different section 55A was in gross contradiction of law Conclusion: Since AO had merely issued reference to DVO under s.142A without any background or reasons and the Valuation Officer, in turn, had conferred within […]
Assessee had disclosed additional income in return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A voluntarily, hence, there could not be any penalty under Expln. 5A to section 271(1)(c) as income disclosed by assessee in pursuance to search was not based on incriminating document.
Sonal Parekh Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether the addition under section 69C for Bogus purchases are justified in law? In the give case, A.O. has received the information from VAT department that the assessee is dealing with Hawala dealers for some purchases and hence he has re-open the assessment. AO […]
DCIT-Exemptions Vs Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) We find that main object of assessee company was converted as per Section 25 of Companies Act clarifies that assessee company is in area of environmental protection, abetment of pollution of water, air, solid, etc. generated by industrial units in and around Vatva and Odhav area of […]
Deepak Petrochem Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30.10.2002 declaring total loss at Rs.29,31,379/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the […]
Transfer Pricing: ITAT held that even if an assessee is eligible for tax exemption at the rate of hundred percent under section 10A/10B of the Act, then also the arm’s length price on international transactions deserve to be determined under section 92C of the Act.
Once revenue allowed the deduction for the depreciation claimed by the assessee, then it is debarred to reject the claim of the assessee in the subsequent year on the WDV carried forward from the earlier assessment year.
On perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has simply concurred with the AO without formulating specific points and taking note of details available before the Id.CIT(A). In a way, the appeals were dismissed in summary manner. This act is amounting to miscarriage of justice. This exercise of power at the end of the ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, therefore, ITAT set aside all these orders and restore all the issues in these three assessment years to the file of the Id.CIT(A) for deciding them on merit.
Court concurs with the CIT(A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the depreciation on purchase of New Weaving Looms allowed in case of assessee?
