No Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income when assessee filed Revised Return offering to tax rental income...

Non-response to notice is because of disputes between Partners & Inadequate time to reply, so levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) deleted....

Patel Brass Works P. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot) The issue for consideration before us is that if the assessee has not claimed deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in the return of income, can it be permitted to claim the same during the course of assessment proceedings by way of filing a revised […]...

In the absence of any specific finding of PCIT with respect to enquiries which should have been made, section 263 order not justified...

Mahesh K. Bhutiya Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We have noted that the Revenue has accepted the income returned by the assessee from his business by applying 5% profit rate to his turnover of Rs. 20,85,825/-. It is evident therefore that it is an accepted fact that the assessee is a very small businessman and it […]...

Aadarh Developers Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot) Admittedly, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor. Therefore, the revenue has to be recognized by the assessee as per accounting standard 11 issued by the ICAI and not as per the accounting standard 7 which is applicable to the contractor. The accounting standard 11 says […]...

Sopan Developers Vs PCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Amendment for charging the tax on the notional rent with respect to the properties held as stock in trade was applicable from the assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent assessment year. As such, the amended provision is not applicable for the year under consideration. Thus the question of calculating...

DCIT Vs Shree Swaminarayan Infrastructure Private Limited (ITAT Rajkot) In this case, assessee company has issued shares of Rs.2,92,00,000/-being 7300 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.3990/- per share and thus there is increase in share capital of Rs.73,000/-. Over and above that the company has collected premium of Rs.2,9...

Held that an inquiry made by the AO, considered inadequate by the Commissioner of Income Tax, cannot make the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax by invoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry....

DCIT Vs Sidhanath Enterprise (ITAT Rajkot) The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of cash deposits of Rs. 224.53,23,993/-. in the bank account of the assessee, noting that identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the assessee itself in a writ petition filed by the […]...