This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar (‘CIT(A)’, for short) dated 05.10.2016, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 12.10.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14
The question, however, as we see it, is not the amount at which the land was actually sold, which is in the following year, but whether the cash deposit of Rs.49 lacs could be said to form part of the transaction of sale of land by the assessee’ s father. S
Sh. Shridhar Bedi through Legal Heir Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Proper notice u/s 148 of the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding is not a mere procedural requirement but the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any of the reassessment made u/s 147. It is settled […]
Section 69B cannot be invoked on the assumption that there was understatement of the investment, without a finding that the assessee invested more than what was recorded in the books of account.
HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Amritsar) The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as […]
Where application for registration certificate was rejected solely on the ground that trust deed did not contain the beneficiary clause; opportunity was given to assessee to make fresh application after incorporating the said clause in the trust deed.
Disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even if the assessee has not earned any tax-free income on the investment. . It was immaterial if dividend income was actually earned or not, which, rather, may be a consideration where the shares, as in the present case, are held to retain control over the investee company, i.e., for strategic reasons, as was the case with regard to the investment by Maxopp Investment Ltd. – one of the assessees in that case.
DCIT Vs Shri Subhash Gandhi (ITAT Amritsar) An order passed u/s 127 of the Act is not appealable before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the first appellate authority has no jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of an order passed u/s 127, transferring the jurisdiction from one Assessing Officer (AO) to another, it is, but, […]
In the absence of any specific mention of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B, no interest would be recovered from the assessee merely by way of a demand notice.
Admittedly there is a mistake committed by the assessee in not adding interest on the refund to his sources of income. There is no disputing the fact that the tax payer duly and diligently must necessarily in its return of income disclose all avenues of his income. The assessee in its defence has consistently maintained […]
