Assessee produced all books of account, vouchers, bills and other documents but AO without pointing out any mistake and error in the bills/vouchers and without rejecting books of account, made addition @8%. On basis of suspicion and conjectures that assessee might be inflating its expenses and showing net profit ratio at a very low rate. Therefore, ends of justice would be met, if net profit rate of 2.50% was adopted.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 40A(3) for advance which is returned back to the customer in cash is justified in law?
Shri Abdul Hamid Vs ITO (ITAT Gauhati) Important facts of the case: 1) The assessee was engaged in the retail business of eggs & was also the partner of a partnership firm M/s Nihar Enterprises. 2) During the Regular Assessment Proceedings for Assessment year, 2014-15 AO found that a Bank Account @ Central Bank of […]
whether the AO can expand the assessment from ‘Limited Scrutiny’ to ‘Complete Scrutiny’ without following the procedure as laid by the CBDT Circular?
ITO Vs Shri Bimal Talukdar (ITAT Guwahati) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated by the AO sustain Under Income Tax Law? In the present case, the ITAT earlier had allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by taking note of […]
Adjournment can be granted in the absence of ‘Vakalatnama’ based on Principle of Natural Justice. Therefore, all the Misc. Applications of the assessee are allowed.
Since clause (i) section 92A was omitted with effect from 1st April, 2017 and the effect of such omission is that the said clause(i) was never existed in the statute. Hence, Ld. PCIT can not exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.
Assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IE from Financial year 2008-09 and onwards due to modernization of its plant & machinery by infusing additional capital investment by more than 25 % of initial investment in plant & machinery as envisaged in clause (iii) of sub-section 7 of section 80-IE.
The issue under consideration is whether prior period items were to be included in the determination of the net profit or loss under Mercantile system of accounting
Assessee had developed shopping mall on a property owned by it and by providing host of services/facilities amenities in the said mall and as such, basic intention of assessee was commercial exploitation of its property by developing it as shopping malls, therefore, income earned by assessee from letting out various shops/stalls in shopping malls constructed by it had to be treated as business income and not as income from house property.
