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?
Where out of 14 persons, 13 persons have duly confirmed the booking advances made to assessee and their creditworthiness was also examined by AO but no negative inference was drawn by him, no addition could be made under section 68 just because one person who had only advanced an meager amount, had not recorded the statement under oath as he was abroad. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) would also not be levied.
Trushar Parimal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition in the present case was made under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenses. Indeed, the primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the expenses claimed by him. However from the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus […]
Assessee not having routed service tax amount through profit and loss account, there was no question of making disallowance under section 43B on account of delayed payment of service-tax.
Assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source
The revisional action under Section 263 of the Act in unsustainable in law on two counts; (i) A revisional action which began with a nondescript notice and culminated in revisional order without any effective opportunity despite specific request is an order passed in blatant transgression of natural justice & (ii) The Revisional CIT made an unflinching and adverse conclusion in the league of finality (without granting any opportunity) and closed the door for the assessee before the AO while setting aside the order of AO.
The assessee before us is a HUF. During the relevant previous year, the assessee sold three properties. In the income tax return filed by the assessee, however, only the capital gains on sale of 1/2 of these properties were shown. When the Assessing Officer probed this apparent discrepancy, it was explained that these properties were purchased by Shri Pranayakumar Shodhan
Shri Dinesh Khodidas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmadabad) The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in referring the matter to DVO to find FMV by rejecting valuation report submitted by assessee? In the present case, assessee sold a land along with others co-owners. It had submitted the valuation report as on 1-4-1981 of […]
