Clearly, unless a receipt is not an income, there is no occasion for the provisions of Section 56(1) or 56(2) coming into play. Section 56 does not decide what is an income. What it holds is that if there is an income, which is not taxable under any of the heads under Section 14, i.e item A to E, it is taxable under the head income from other sources’.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ACIT vs. Rupam Impex that the AO has justified the mistake on record on the ground that it is attributed to the assessee. The income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings.
Samta Kamal Drolia Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee has received Rs. 2.20 Lakh from His Step Father and contended that he received the amounts in gift. The ld.AR has rejected the explanation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is step-son of Donor, therefore, their relationship does not fall within the ambit of […]
The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed by the Assessing Officer as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. He had filed return on 30-04-2007.
In the case of DCIT Vs. Soma Textiles & Industries Limited , ITAT Rajkot has dismissed 251 Appeal filed by Department as Tax effect in these appeals was not exceeding Rs. 10 Lakh, in view of recent CBDT circular no. 21/2015 dated 10th December 2015.
ITAT held in Dy CIT Vs Ms Nevil Gems that if the assessee had maintained quantitative details of diamonds but had not qualitative and piece-wise details then in that case books of account could not be rejected
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Micro Ink Limited. Vs. ACIT that such interest is includible in operating income and the operating income itself has been accepted as reasonable under method TNMM, there cannot be an occasion to make adjustment for notional interest on delayed
DCIT Vs Shri Jitendra Maganlal Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad) Assessee surrendered Rs.81,77,930/- during the course of survey proceedings covering the excess stock investment, expenses, etc. The assessee had declared a net profit @ 9.16% if the amount surrendered is taken into account
In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, assessee was required to deduct tax and has deducted TDS @ 2% of sum paid/credited to GETCO Ltd. but due to filing of wrong PAN of deductee it has been deemed as assessee in default and accordingly 18% of remaining
Cama Hotels Ltd, Vs DCIT (ITAT AHEMDABAD) When the assessee had furnished the PAN of the concerned depositors, the Assessing Officer ought to have made inquiry from the jurisdictional Assessing Officers to find out the current address of the depositors.
