DCIT Vs Maahi Milk Producer Co. Ltd (ITAT Rajkot) The brief facts of the case the assessee is engaged in the business of selling milk and milk products. The assessee had made payment of Rs. 29,63,90,780/- to M/s. Mother Dairy and M/s. Giriraj Milk Pvt. Ltd. for conversion of raw milk into processed milk and […]
ITAT Rajkot held that dividend income and interest earned on surplus held with cooperative bank would be eligible for deduction under Sec.80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Rajkot held that service of notice to the last known address of the assessee cannot be held as invalid service of notice as assessee has left the place to unknown location without informing anyone.
Hitesh Manshukhbahi Dave Vs JCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhaniv ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 693 (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his son to meet urgent requirement of depositing margin money in bank account for buying a vehicle […]
ITAT Rajkot held that as notices were served to e-mail ID of old income tax practitioner of the assessee, assessee was not aware of the issuance of the same and hence didn’t replied Held that penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed when assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure.
ITAT Rajkot held that department cannot take away rights of the assessee just by inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee at the time of return filing.
ITAT Rajkot held that in absence of any specific provisions under the Income Tax Act, notional income on advance cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, addition deleted.
It is well-settled law that once the proceedings are before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in respect of certain issues, then the same issue again cannot be re-agitated by taking recourse to proceedings under section 263 of the Act as held in the case of CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels Private Limited 418 ITR 723 (Allahabad)
If assessee was under bona fide belief that as per Guidance Note issued by ICAI on ‘tax audit under section 44AB’ net result in derivative transaction was to be considered as turnover and accordingly, he would not be liable to get his books audited as turnover did not exceed more than Rs. 1 crore, penalty levied under section 271B was to be deleted
No Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income when assessee filed Revised Return offering to tax rental income
