Shri Keshav Lila Vs. ACIT (ITAT Indore) CBDT instructions which in our view provides a guideline to the search conducting team that no seizure should be made of the jewellery and ornaments found during the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, if the same have been duly declared in the wealth tax […]
Indore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) by considering the fact that the assessee conceded the transaction of Sale of Agricultural Land in the hands of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
ITAT held that that if interest income does not result at all, there cannot be any tax and that if an income has not materialized, then merely an entry made about a hypothetical income by following book keeping methods, the liability to tax cannot be attracted.
Plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts the application of sub-section (1) of Section 150 to enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(2) of the Act.
Shri Anil Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) It has been held that even when the Assessing Officer of the person searched and the other person is common, the Assessing Officer of the person searched has to necessarily form a satisfaction that the item referred to in section 153C belongs or belong to a person other […]
Since the mistake of quoting wrong PAN has been rectified in the revised TDS return filed by the assessee which has been accepted by the department, therefore, there is no justification in raising a demand on account of short deduction of TDS.
Ashoka Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) In this Case ITAT Indore explains Entire law on taxation of real estate construction contracts in the context of ‘completed contract’ vs. ‘percentage completion’ with reference to Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9 and all important judgements on the issue. ITAT further explained Provisions of S. Section […]
In this case the Assessee was a Public Sector undertaking and had omitted to add back Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. During the Assessment the mistake was noticed and the claim was conceded and disallowance of provision was made.
The Assessee was a significant shareholder in a company – The company sold building to shareholder on credit – Department treated it as ‘loan’ or ‘advance’ for invoking Section 2(22)(e). CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that since the unpaid purchase price has not been paid
he assessee claimed that the assessee borrowed unsecured loan @ 18% from related as well as unrelated parties. Therefore, the rate of 18% cannot be said to be excessive. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Balkrishna Goyal vs. DCIT, I.T.A.No. 590/Ind/2009
