The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Waves Food Private Limited vs. DCIT held that reopening of assessment to disallow provision for damaged goods returned is not valid as the issue had been specifically dealt by AO during the course of regular assessment and such disallowance by reopening
ITAT-Ahmedabad In the case of M/s Shiv Associates v DCIT quashed the notice u/s 153C relying on the Judgment of the similar case related to the assessee in which the notices u/s 153C were quashed as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO.
In the Case of the Dasrathbhai Narandas Patel v ITO, ITAT-Ahmedabad held that the assessment Proceedings are completely different from Penalty Proceedings and before initiating the penalty proceedings there should be some convincing and corroborative evidence.
Assessing Officer added last amount of short term capital gains to the tune of Rs. 54,67,547/- under section 50 of the Act. This comprised of a sum of Rs. 4,86,650/- qua factory building and Rs. 49,80,897/- relating to plant and machinery.
Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) The CIT’s sole reason for invoking section 263 jurisdiction alleges lack of verification in respect of 11 share and premium applicants to the tune of Rs. 56 lacs.
The Assessing Officer made disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. As per assessee, the AO has not established any nexus between the expenditure disallowed and investment made from which the income denied is exempt from tax.
Shri Govind G. Sarawagi HUF Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Name of the HUF, who is separate taxable entity, is no where available in the Panchnama. It is also pertinent to note that all the members of the HUF were not covered under the search action.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Parul Bhupendra Patel vs. ITO held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of doubting certain information filed in the return of income and reopening assessment on that basis is not valid in law as AO had not obtained any new tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment.
Since the Rule-8D of I.T.Rules, 1962 is not applicable, therefore in our considered view the AO was not justified in applying the Rule 8D for making disallowance. The ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee was having substantial funds and lesser borrowed funds.
ACIT Vs. Shri Jayantilal T. Jariwala (ITAT Ahmedabad)- In thie Case Assessing Officer found that assessee had constructed a residential house, B-3, Mamta Flats, Surat and plot No.158/21 GIDC, Pandesara, Surat. The AO was not satisfied with the cost of construction shown
