ACIT Vs Gowthami Chemicals & Pesticides (P) Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In this case, the assessee has furnished the confirmation letters explaining the identity of the shareholder, address and sources of income of the contributor to the share capital along with the evidence for land holdings and copies of IT returns in 4 cases before the […]
In this case Since the rice mill owned by the assessee was let out to another rice mill and the rental income was received without carrying on any business activity or rendering any services incidental to carrying on the rice mill, therefore, the AO rightly assessed the income under the head ‘Income from other sources’.
Inadequate inquiry by AO with respect to compliance of TDS under section 194H could not be equated with lack of inquiry, so as take the case for revision under section 263.
Sri Pinnamaraju Venkatapathi Raju Visakhapatnam Vs JCIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) In the instant case, on verification of the assessment record, it is noticed that the A.O. typed the reasons but not signed the order sheet, thus there are no reasons recorded for reopening of assessment as required u/s 148 of the Act. The A.O. neither complied […]
Where AO typed the reasons but not signed the order sheet, there were no reasons recorded for re-opening assessment as required under section 148, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was bad in law, consequently reassessment order was to be annulled.
The Ld.CWT(A) should have struck off the irrelevant column and made known the assessee by mentioning for which reason the penalty was initiated. Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act are parimateria to Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). As per settled case laws non striking the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders the notice invalid and consequent penalty required to be cancelled.
Asst. Vs Sai Bhaskar Irons Ltd. Once addition under section 68 was included in gross total income, AO had to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation loss as provided under section 71 dealing with the set off of loss from one head against income from another head. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal […]
Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of 3,90,370/- on 3.10.2007. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) on 31.12.2009 determining the total income at 6,90,370/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for not considering the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of IT Act.
In this case, the assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of 98,820/-. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) was carried out in the case of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders on 11.10.2012 and in the course of search, the document No.5019 of 2011 of SRO
In the instant case the assessee has made the payments to the LIC towards group gratuity scheme directly in approved schemes. The assessee has also obtained the policy in favor of the bank. The assessee has no control over the funds contributed to LIC towards the gratuity.
