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 […]
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.
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 […]
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.
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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.
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 […]
