It is evident that the assessee had received cash amounts, but deposited in its Bank A/c which is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS. But like any other penalty, the operation of Section 271D with reference to the violation of the provisions contained in Section 269SS also is not automatic.
Hemendra Lilachand Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT noted that requirement of filing appeal before the learned CIT (A) in electronic form was new. The assessee being individual filed appeal before CIT(A) within time limit but in paper dated 18th April 2016 instead of filing online as required by the CBDT notification dated 1st March […]
ACIT Vs Shree Ami Office Owner’s Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) The issue for consideration is the year of taxability of the property. We observe that in the instant case, both the registered sale deed as well as the possession of the property was transferred in the subsequent financial year i.e. financial year 2007-08. The complete payment […]
Ardor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is pertinent to note that though the business was not conducted during the present A.Y., for the purpose of smooth running of the business the assessee has borrowed the amount which was reflected duly in the bank account (Profit & Loss account and Balance Sheet of […]
Commission earned by assessee on such “cheque discounting” was chargeable at 0.25% of total deposits in the bank accounts owned/ operated by the assessee as commission income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration in absence of details provided by assessee for arriving at any methodology along-with supporting evidence viz. details of beneficiaries, details of middlemen, basis of arriving at commission etc.
An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. But the section of the community sought to be benefited must be sufficiently defined and identifiable by some common quality of a public order or impersonal nature.
Assessee not liable for penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) when an addition is being made with the help of deeming provision of Section 50C
ITAT Ahmedabad held that adoption of one of the courses permissible in law which resulted in to loss of revenue cannot be treated as erroneous order and accordingly invocation of revision proceedings u/s 263 unjustifiable.
Zirconia Cera Tech Glazes Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT find that in this case the basis of addition is contents of show-cause notice issued by the Excise Department. An investigation was carried out by DGCEI at assessee premises, wherein it was alleged by the Excise Department that assessee has not declared actual assessable value of […]
The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice why the renovation expenses of four showrooms should not be treated as capital expenditure and allow appropriate depreciation.
