ITAT Surat

Transfer Pricing Officer: Quasi-capital are treated differently than normal loan transactions

Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Surat)

Bilakhia Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Surat) Facts- The Assessee Company being an investment company had received shares from its Promoters as a gift. The AO dismissed this claim stating that it was purchased by the assessee company at a discount from the said Promoters and that consideration was involved. Hence, AO disallowed the [&h...

Read More

No additions for cash deposit duly explained with cash flow statement 

Smt. Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

Smt. Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) The assessing officer made addition by taking his view that assessee is a Government Employee and was maintaining bank account and that a person who is maintaining bank account will not keep such huge cash in hand which is abnormal. The ld.CIT(A) concurred with the finding of […]...

Read More

If AO made addition on estimated GP basis than other item-wise disallowance should not be made

Devyani Tex Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Surat)

Devyani Tex Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Surat) From the above facts it is abundantly clear that books of accounts of the assessee were rejected by the assessing officer and on appeal, ld CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books of accounts and reduced the profit estimation. We also upheld the order of ld CIT(A), […]...

Read More

Addition under section 69A unsustainable for cash deposited as facilitator

Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Conclusion- Cash deposited in bank was transferred to insurance company by way of insurance premium in the name of respective insurer – Assessee acted as facilitator and not the owner of the cash deposited in bank account – Addition not possible under section 69A. Facts- The assessee deposite...

Read More

Amount shown in 26AS not taxable if assessee was not actual beneficiary of said amount

Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat)

Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat) No addition of amount shown in form 26 AS for taxation If assessee is not the actual beneficiary such amount In Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore [ IT APPEAL No. 43 (SRT) OF 2021 dated June 28, 2021], Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar  […]...

Read More

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

Babubhai Arjanbhai Kanani (HUF) Vs DCIT (ITAT Surat)

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....

Read More

Mere Cash Deposit Not A Valid Ground for Reassessment Proceedings

Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

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 […]...

Read More

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

Nishant kantilal Patel  Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

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...

Read More

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

DCIT Vs Shhlok Enterprise (ITAT Surat)

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 ...

Read More

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

Jagrutiben V. Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)

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 […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (6,188)
Company Law (8,667)
Corporate Law (11,005)
Custom Duty (9,608)
DGFT (4,893)
Excise Duty (4,943)
Fema / RBI (5,356)
Finance (5,770)
Income Tax (43,285)
SEBI (4,668)
Service Tax (4,106)

Search Posts by Date

December 2022
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031