ITAT Amritsar quashes ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.1,02,350 by ITO, citing lack of specificity in voucher verification. Analysis of the case & key arguments.
Dive into Smt. Rani appeal against the addition of Rs. 611,000 as unexplained cash deposit. Detailed analysis of the ITAT Amritsar order and its implications.
Explore the Harpreet Singh Grover vs. ITO case at ITAT Amritsar. Analysis of cash deposit controversy, CIT(A) decision, and ITAT’s order for de novo adjudication.
As regards to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. JCIT mentioned as under: Yes, it is a fit case to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Sh. Prem Pal Gandhi Vs ACIT (ITAT Amritsar) The appellant objected to the levy of penalty as bad in law. He challenged that the AO has not mentioned under which limbs of section 27 1(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was initiated. Thus, He has […]
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Educational Society Vs CIT(Exemption) (ITAT Amritsar) It is not obligatory for the assessee for maintain dissolution clause which will not be the issue for rejection of registration u/s 12A of the Act. Accordingly the registration U/s 12A could not be denied to the assessee-society for non maintain the dissolution clause. Facts- The […]
J & K Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Amritsar) No disallowance can be made that the payment to the employee’s contribution to PF and ESI paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1). Accordingly, we hold that no disallowance can be made in the assessment […]
Rajdhani Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Amritsar) In this case Section 263 order was passed only on the basis of the non-appearance of assessee and non submission of the document during the proceeding. Section 263 is moved up by two limbs, one erroneous order and second is prejudicial to the interest of the […]
Held that order of CIT(A) sustained on the issue restricting the disallowance of non-capitalization of interest on bank loan on Plant & Machinery and on account of non-capitalization of interest expenditure on Capital Work in Progress u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Smt. Poonam Mittal Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) We find that the AO had invoked his powers u/s.154 of the Act for disallowing u/s.40A(3) of the Act the assessee’s claim for deduction of bonus of Rs.2,47,380/- that was stated to have been paid in cash, i.e., in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs.20,000/-. In our […]
