In Hira Lal Kadlabju vs. ACIT, ITAT Amritsar remits the case back to the assessing officer as the ownership of seized cash remains undecided pending High Court determination.
ITAT Amritsar orders restoration of Bashir Ahmad Sofi’s case due to violation of natural justice. Ex parte orders quashed, fresh assessment directed.
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) The entire issue is in two parts, one is legal issue by challenging the jurisdiction of notice u/s 148 and the jurisdiction of the ld. AO related to calculation of capital gain of the assessee without referring the issue to DVO. The last issue was challenged by the […]
Malwa Coop. L & C Society Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) In its fact, that the gross receipt should be determined by allowing the reasonable deduction of the items like TDS, VAT, security letter cess and other deduction. Accordingly, the assessee made a correct calculation related to calculation of the contract receipt. Both the Revenue […]
DCIT Vs Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (ITAT Amritsar) The undisputed facts in the present case are that the assessee claimed excise duty refund and interest subsidy as revenue receipt in the return of income and the assessment order was passed on 17.12.2009. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of J & K in the case of […]
Jatinderpal Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Relying on the decision of ITAT Amritsar in the case of Kulwant Singh v. ITO in ITA No. 519/Asr/2014 dated 19.02.2015 appellant submitted that the credit of the income returned by the assessee should have been allowed from the peak credit balance sustained by the CIT(Appeal). It was submitted […]
ITAT Amritsar held that the assessee is not liable for payment of tax related to sale of property which belong to his father. Accordingly, addition liable to be quashed.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is beyond jurisdiction as the amount is already declared as turnover and the said turnover is reflected in the books of account.
ITAT Amritsar held that date of presentation of cheque should be taken as date of payment. Accordingly, payment of employee contribution is deemed to have been made on the date of presentation of cheque.
AO has no right to calculate sales on hypothetical basis ignoring the evidence submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Once the amount is declared as turn over cannot be called concealed income and be taxed doubly on same amount. The addition U/s 68 is beyond jurisdiction of the ld. AO as the turnover is already reflected in the books of the assessee.
