Hanuman Prasad & Sons Vs DCIT/ACIT/ITO (ITAT Allahabad) In this case assessee has not only replied the notice but also replied to the letter issued by AO. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) on 28th December, 2019. Once the assessee has made the compliance though […]
ITAT Allahabad held that while rejecting the application for grant of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) CCIT has not dealt with all the aspects in a comprehensive manner and hence the matter restored back for passing detailed and exhaustive order.
Sudhir Kumar Tiwari Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) It is apparent that the Assessing Officer initially initiated the scrutiny proceedings to examine the cash deposit of Rs. 18,00,000/- during the demonetization period. However, on verification of the bank account as well as the reply of the assessee as well as bank, the Assessing Officer found that […]
Held that as per section 21(2) of Deposit, Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation of India all the funds realized by Bank under liquidation are diverted at source. Such funds are not available to the assessee as income and hence such income is not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
Gaus Mohammad Vs ITO (ITAT Allahabad) Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) doubted the genuineness of the Will in question without conducting any enquiry or examination of the genuineness. The assessee has produced the affidavit of one of the attesting witness of the Will to prove the Will executed by his father. Therefore, it […]
Held that assessee failed to explain identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 sustained.
Held that imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) justified as necessary record impounded by the department was not supplied to the assessee, accordingly assessee failed to comply with the notice u/s. 142(1).
ITO Vs Tilak Proficient Nidhi Limited (ITAT Allahabad) The ld. CIT(A) simply accepted all the contentions /additional evidences filed by the assessee, without complying with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as it was incumbent on ld. CIT(A) to have forwarded all these additional evidences/explanations filed by assessee to the AO for its […]
ITAT held that Even if it is assumed MD was ill which incapacitated him for continuously four years , the assessee could have entrusted the task to other Directors/officers of the assessee
Section 68 of the Act creates a legal fiction which cast obligation on the assessee to explain to the satisfaction of the AO about nature and source of credit in case any amount is found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year.
