It is amply clear that the additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act can be made provided the transaction takes place during the previous year / financial year. Further, for making addition under section 68 of the Act, the assessee must fail to offer explanation and for making addition under section 69C of the Act, the source of the expenditure must remain unproved. In the present case, the assessee had duly explained the sources of the credit and the expenditure, respectively.
It is a settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
Achal Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow) Documents clearly demonstrates that assessee had purchased shares through Brokers for which the payment was made through banking channels. The assessee had sold shares through authorized stock broker and payment was received through baking channels after deduction of STT. On Page 16 which is a copy of Bank account […]
Where AO made addition under section 68 based on third party statement recorded by investigation wing, however, without affording opportunity of cross-examination to assessee, it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, addition was deleted.
ITO Vs M/s Arti Securities & Services Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) Issue of scrutiny notice by non jurisdictional officer makes entire assessment invalid as per CBDT instruction no 1 of 2011 holds ITAT Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the second ground taken by the assessee is a jurisdictional issue therefore, he […]
If the Revenue has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue can go before the High Court by filing appeal u/s 260A. The Tribunal cannot recall its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act.
Shri Suresh Khatri Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow) Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the appeal relate to the disallowance of Rs.6,42,437/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on payment of ocean freight, made to non-resident shipping companies. The assessee is a proprietary concern and engaged in the business of […]
The issue under consideration is whether the TCS u/s 206C at 1% will be applicable on sale of scrap not generated out of manufacturing activities?
Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) Passing ex-parte order when assessee could not attend the proceedings due to lockdown is not justified in law. Since Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide letter dated 24th March, 2020 had issued directions for stopping of the work of all offices for […]
Lucknow Development Authority Vs ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Therefore, at the end ITAT approved to stay the outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier, provided the assessee deposits the above noted amounts within the […]
