These two appeals of the same assessee (assessed in the name of different agents) relating to the assessment year 2007-08 are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bareilly of the even date 27-9-2016 arising out of the order passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), both dated 3-3-2015.
1. It is amply clear that in the case in hand the ACIT observed that the mechanical approval had to be accorded as there is hardly any time left for any discussion or consideration much less meaningful discussion including the fact that absolutely no time available for any further inquiry or investigation because of the […]
ITAT held that No addition can be made u/s 68 in respect of any loan received prior to start of previous year relevant to present assessment year.
If period of holding is >1yr then it is LTCG & Exempt & Assessing Officer can make addition in the year of purchase if unexplained but no addition can be made in the present year/year of assessment.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case of M/s Juhi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that since enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer on all the points on which objection had been raised by CIT in the notice issued by him u/s 263, this is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer because on all the issues, query was raised by the Assessing Officer and replies were submitted by the assessee
ITAT Lucknow held in the case DCIT vs. M/s J.K. Cement Ltd. that certain conditions are made in the subsidy scheme, which is required to be fulfilled by the corporate sector in order to avail the benefit of subsidy.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case of DCIT vs. M/s E-Soft Technologies Ltd. that as per the CBDT Circular No. 01 of 2013 and as per the Tribunal decision of the Pune Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Symantec Software India P. Ltd in ITA No. 787/PN/09, dated 30th November 2011
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of ITO vs. Shri Rajesh Agarwal that undisputedly notice of hearing under section 143(2) was issued on the last day of limitation/prescribed period for issuance of notice i.e. on 30.9.2011 at 15.19 hours by speed post.
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s J. K. Synthetics Ltd. that CIT (A) correctly observed that there are many judgments in which, it was held that if there is change in the method of valuation of closing stock due to mandatory requirement and that change has been consistently followed by the assessee, no addition is called for.
DCIT Vs M/s Ansh Intermediate Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) The addition cannot be sustained only for the simple reason that these shareholder companies have not responded in first round of commission.
