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 […]
ITAT Indore held that TDS on salary is deductible on the basis of net salary i.e. gross salary (-) deduction under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, demanding amount on short-deduction of TDS calculated on gross salary is unsustainable.
Prakash Javia HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Records placed before us also shows that report of the investigation wing or any enquiry conducted from 3rd persons were not made available to the assessee which thus grossly violates the principles of natural justice. As the assessee never got opportunity to go through these reports this action […]
ITAT held that merely for not producing the cash creditors before the Ld. AO even when all the necessary documents as required to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash creditors are furnished by the assessee, cannot be a reasonable basis to make addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
Held that addition u/s 68 unsustainable as all the necessary documentary evidences in support of genuineness of share capital submitted by the assessee.
