Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case, the registration was already granted by the Ld.CIT vide order dated 20.03.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2002. There is no dispute with regard to genuineness of the activities and there is no finding of the Ld.CIT with regard to not carrying on the activities as per the […]
Kasapu Ramesh Babu Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Assessing Officer has to act on the basis of “reasons to believe” and not on “reasons to suspect”. In the instant case, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are based upon no evidence and/or un-corroborative material. The Assessing Officer further failed to establish the nexus […]
DCIT Vs Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case there was no evidence found in the premises of the assessee to show that the assessee is under invoicing the sales. No other material was found and seized from the premises of the assessee with regard to receipt of cash from […]
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F if construction of house is commenced prior to the transfer of the asset?
Addition was made merely on the basis of whatsapp messages and the statement recorded from section 132(4) from Shri Lanka Anil Kumar which was subsequently retracted. Therefore we are of the view that the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.
ACIT Vs Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find from the orders of the lower authorities that the basis for additional income was only estimation but not supported by any evidence. Even the department failed to substantiate the industry average of purification loss with authenticated documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that the additional income […]
The issue under consideration is whether provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are applicable on difference between consideration paid for purchase of property and SRO value as on date of agreement?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is justified in making addition u/s 68 towards alleged unexplained deposit in the bank account in as much as a bank account is not a book of account maintained by the appellant?
The issue under consideration is whether the Income-tax payment made by assessee is an application of income and will be eligible for deduction u/s 11?
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made by AO u/s 41(1) for waiver of working capital loan and charge it u/s 28 of the Act?
