In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.
Smt. Archana Agrawal Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) During the course of search gold jewellery was found and seized from the residence and bank locker owned by the assessee. Gold jewellery weighing 2027 gram was found (1127 gram from residence and 900 gram from locker No.12/29). The assessee was unable to explain the source of the […]
Shri Dinesh Goswami Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) When Source of Income Fully Explained Past Savings Kept in Locker is Justifiable in Law FACTS – Search was carried out on 30.11.2012 on the premises of assessee. Notice u/s 153A was issued to assessee to file return for AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13. During the search cash […]
Where assessee-director was able to establish the relation between expenditure incurred by credit card with the business of the company in which assessee was a director, the expenses incurred was allowable to that extent.
Smt. Rashmi Mujumdar Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) We are surprised to note that the Ld.CIT(A) did not allowed the claim of silver articles weighing 609 grams and 280 grams valuing Rs.24,639/- and Rs.9856/-. CBDT instruction No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, CBDT directs the income tax authorities conducting the search not to seize the jewellery ornaments found during […]
When cash payment was done on insistence of the seller, amount was duly recorded in the sale deed and no doubt was raised with regard to the genuineness of the transaction, disallowance u/s 40A(3) not justifiable.
Shri Anil Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Indor) Once the condition of further proviso of Section 194C(3) of the Act are satisfied, the liability of the payee to deduct tax at source would cease. Examining the facts of the instant appeal we find that the assessee received Form 15I from the truck owner namely Shri Kishorilal Birla […]
Smt. Anita Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) in the year 2006 itself the assessee along with other persons initiated the process of developing a colony which is proved by the Registration No.40/2006 issued on 21.8.2006. Few months before and the period thereafter all these 18 persons kept on purchasing the land from various land owners and parallely […]
Assessee made no offence prohibited by law which can be contemplated to be covered under Explanation to section 37 of the Act and, therefore, the payment of penalty made by the assessee to the Stock Exchange is a regular business expenditure and the impugned disallowance has rightly been deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of 77,845/- made by the AO in the appellant’s income on allegation of unexplained cash, solely on the basis of statement of the appellant recorded during the course of survey u/s. 133A of the Act, without considering and appreciating the explanation with evidences offered by the appellant.
