Assessing Officer has taken into consideration the facts and estimated the profit taking into deposits in the bank accounts. Thereafter, there were no new facts before the Assessing Officer which could justify the reopening. On these facts, it was nothing more than change of mind by the Assessing Officer, and a reopening of assessment on the basis of change of opinion, in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Kelvinator’s case (supra), is not permissible in law.
DCIT Vs Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd (ITAT Cuttack) In this case there is nothing to suggest that all the primary facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act nor any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly […]
GVV Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) If the assessee uses motor lorries partly for own use and for hire charges he is not entitled to claim excess depreciation @ 30% as per the provisions of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. Case Summary: – Facts of the case: The assessee filed return […]
The issue under consideration is whether as per Section 43CB, profits and gains of a construction company mandatorily be determined on the basis of percentage completion method for revenue recognition?
Laxmi Narayan Jewellery Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) From the order passed u/s.143(3) of the assessment year 2012-2013, there is no any single word found in regard to survey proceedings u/s.133A of the Act, whereas the documents were available with the same AO i.e. Ward-2(2), Balasore and the assessee accepted some discrepancy in stock and agreed […]
Alishan Palace Resorts Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) in the instant case, the value adopted and computed by the assessee as per Rule 11UA(2)(c)(b) by following DCF method at Rs.51/85 and the assessee company has received shares and issued/allotted @ Rs.50 per share including premium and this rate has not been contested or challenged […]
AO considered assessee as assessee in default in respect of non-deduction of TDS under Section 194H and 194J of the Act on payment of commission and fees for professional or technical services and passed an order under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the leasehold rights is considered as intangible assets and hence eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii)? ITAT hold that the lease hold rights are not eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act considering it as intangible rights and, accordingly, dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.
N. Roja Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) We find that the AO made addition on account of unexplained investment in gold and jewellery of 2417.290 grams as found and seized during the course of search in the residential premises and the Locker No.75/4 & 145/2 of the assessee at Indian Overseas Bank, Rayagada. During the course […]
Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
