ITAT Indore held that penalty under section 271D and section 271E are not attracted in case of loan given. Accordingly, penalty proceeding imposing penalty u/s 271D/ 271E of the Income Tax Act in case of loan given is invalid.
Rupesh Vyas Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 20.09.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Indore [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned ACIT-3(1), Indore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for Assessment-Year 2014-15, the assessee has filed […]
Higher rate of tax was prescribed in section 115BBE through an amendment made vide Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 and the said amendment received assent of the President of India on 15.12.2016 and therefore the amendment shall apply prospectively w.e.f. 15.12.2016 and not retrospectively.
M.P. Police Sakh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Vs PCIT (ITAT Indore) Co-operative societies engaged in banking business are eligible for deduction u/s. 80P on their interest income from bank deposits- ITAT Indore Facts of the Case 1. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking which filed ITR claiming deduction u/s 80P. […]
ITAT held that ITR is a sacred document prescribed in law and reporting-error cannot be pleaded so lightly. The prescribed forms of ITR have suitable columns to furnish the details of cash-balance, this law procedure has been in statute for several years and nobody can dispute it.
Service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act within the statutory time limit is mandatory one and not a procedural requirement.
Additional depreciation on purchase of raw material and making packing material was manufacture as the final product was a commercially, physically and chemically different and a very important factor that the assessee had been consistently regarded as manufacture by various Government Department and Agencies.
Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) The assessee has challenged the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-levied under Section 271B of the Act. The assessee, a Government company, wherein appointment of Auditor in the case of the appellant was governed by the provision of section 619(2) of the Companies […]
Ambesh Shrivastav contests capital gain assessment. Sale deed registration and possession date critical in ITAT Indore case.
ACIT Vs Amit Tiwari (ITAT Indore) The submissions of the assessee are that penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB as initiated is bad in law on account of firstly penalty notice so issued is defective as it does not disclose specific charge and secondly there is no concealed income as search took place prior to due date […]
