Follow Us:

ITAT Surat

No Section 54B deduction denial merely for registration of new agricultural land in name of co-parcener

September 17, 2021 2727 Views 0 comment Print

HUF is owner of the said agricultural land though it is registered in the name of the Coparcener, as the HUF is enjoying all the fruits of the said agricultural land. Thus, the HUF is entitled to claim exemption/deduction under section 54B of the Act.

Mere Cash Deposit Not A Valid Ground for Reassessment Proceedings

April 19, 2021 8874 Views 0 comment Print

Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) 1. Merely cash deposit in a saving bank account does not show that income has escaped assessment. The process of reasoning is absent, and these reasons were not recorded on standalone basis therefore reopening made by the Assessing Officer may be quashed. 2. The amount deposited in the […]

Penny Stocks – No addition on mere surmises, suspicion & conjectures

January 7, 2021 8976 Views 0 comment Print

In the absence of any link between the assessee and the alleged admissions of the directors and brokers, human probability is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. No addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect.

Statement recorded during survey without any supporting evidence have no Evidentiary value

January 6, 2021 6054 Views 0 comment Print

DCIT Vs Shhlok Enterprise (ITAT Surat) The assessing officer made addition on the basis of statement recorded during the survey without any supporting evidence or any adverse material on record. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also concluded that it is settled legal position that statement recorded during the survey has no evidence of value moreover the […]

Amended Section 55A provisions not applicable to documents registered before 01.07.2012

November 27, 2020 2316 Views 0 comment Print

Jagrutiben V. Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Regarding the validity of reference to the DVO u/s.55A of the Act, first of all, it is to be noted that amendment in section 55A of the Act is effective from 01.07.2012, that is, applicable for assessment year 2013-14 and assessee`s case under consideration is for assessment year […]

Inclusion of tenancy period for computing indexed Long Term capital Gain

October 22, 2020 2775 Views 0 comment Print

Jhonson Electric Company Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs Ved Prakash & sons (HUF) (supra) held from the bare reading of section 2(42A), the word ‘owner’ has by design not been used by the Legislature. The word ‘held’ as per dictionary meaning means to possess, be the […]

Assessee can be asked to prove Source of Credits but Not Source of Source

February 11, 2020 3351 Views 0 comment Print

The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 68 against unexplained creditors will be sustainable in law? Assessee Can Asked to Prove the Source of Credits in his Books of Accounts but Not Source of Source.

Reopening of assessment before obtaining sanction of CIT is void ab initio

November 14, 2018 1356 Views 0 comment Print

CIT(A) has rightly quashed the assessment because the very foundation for issuance of notice under section 148 is the approval from the competent authority, i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax, and in the absence of such, such notice is void ab initio.

Law not bars re-conversion of business assets into capital asset and vice versa

August 31, 2018 4371 Views 0 comment Print

Shri Rameshchandra Chhabildas Vs JCIT (ITAT Surat) n the present case, the assessee has converted his stock-in trade in to capital asset and sold out the said asset after its conversion, the gains arising therefrom is therefore, required to be taxed as long-term capital gain and not as business income as held by the AO. Since […]

ITAT deletes penalty on Failure of AO to mention specific limb of section 271(1)(c); Penalty cannot be imposed for mere valuation difference

October 26, 2017 2430 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty U/s. 271(c) Addition for difference on account of method of valuation of Closing Stock without any intention to to conceal income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not justified

Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930