In the case Vinod Kumar Surana Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of withdrawal of deduction u/ 80IB of the Act in the subsequent years when the same were duly granted by the ld. AO in the initial assessment years per se becomes a debatable issue and hence same cannot be dealt in the proceedings u/s 154
In the case of Neeraj Murarka Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of cash withdrawals made by assessee, cash balance held by assessee has never been questioned and nor any fact to the contrary has been brought on record.
Assessee claimed deductions on account of excise duty paid and interest thereon which was originally allowed by AO but subsequently rectified u/s 154 by making addition of the same. ITAT examined the facts
In these cases there are 18 different assessees who filed appeal before ITAT aggrieved from the order u/s 263 passed by CITs. In original proceedings AO passed orders with nominal additions after investigation by way of summoning various subscribers to share capital of assessee companies.
In the impugned year the blood relation is not necessary for the gift to be a genuine gift, but the relationship matters a lot. In all the probabilities the gift is found to be genuine as the donors have explained the source of gift, copy of bank accounts, income tax return.
The assessee is a dealer of sarees and AO while framing the assessment disallowed karigar /embroidery charges by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer while computing the total wealth of the assessee added the value of the let-out properties i.e. godown and offices in the total wealth of the assessee for the purpose of calculating the wealth-tax.
The assessee-company is a Civil Contractor as well as trading in sarees and fabrics. The assessee-company filed its return of income on 28-09-2008 declaring total income at Rs.3,07,285/-. As noted by AO, the assessee could not produce the books of account and supporting bills and vouchers.
It cannot be said that the land owned by the assessee was a vacant land. The character of the land has changed and it was no more plot of the land. Urban land, no doubt, is subject to the tax under the Wealth Tax Act, but, in our opinion, it will cover only the vacant land.
In the present case the Hon’ble Tribunal held that for invoking section 263 both the conditions that the order of AO is erroneous as well prejudicial to the interest of Revenue should be satisfied
