Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT that penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be imposed in those cases where no specific charges are mentioned in penalty notice. In the given case the AO has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Uday C Tamhankar that the submission of assessee that the assessment years up to 2006-07 falls in the category of concluded assessments, i.e., assessments of those years were not pending on the date of initiation of search is a valid submission.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of M/s Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that the concealment penalty levied by the CIT (A) in this case is on the issues which are not free from debate. In our opinion, the assessee would have got relief in most of issues relating to additions based on the estimations
a. Assessee had filed return of income on 27-10-2006 u/s 139(1) and original assessment was done by AO u/s 143(3) vide order dated 15.12.2008. b. Subsequently, this case was reopened u/s 147 and AO framed re-assessment order dated 31.12.2012 u/s 143 read with 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Left with the relevant date to decide in the facts of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in Purushottam Govind Bhat’;s case (supra) really comes to favour the assessee. In the said case, the assessee joined the society in 1977. He was allotted a flat and occupied […]
In the cited case, ITAT held that the Assessing Officer does not have power to embark upon the fresh enquiry with regard to the entries made in the books of accounts of the Company when the accounts of an assessee Company is prepared in terms of Part II Schedule VI
ITAT Mumbai held in J. Gala Vs DCIT that for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) revenue has to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, without which penalty could not be levied. Further for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
JCIT vs. Cybertech Systems & Software P. Ltd.,(ITAT Mumbai) Assesse’s claim for exemption u/s 10B was denied. A.O. also passed a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for raising a false claim for exemption. Tribunal found that assesse had not even challenged rejection of claim in appeal.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of C.R. developments Vs. JCIT that time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied.
ITAT Mumbai has In the case of CIT Vs. Sh. Chandrakant V. Gosalia held that Loan given by Company to its substantial shareholder will attracts provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act,1961 if the same were not lent in ordinary course of business and mere payment of loan amount would not escape assesse from provision of Section 2 (22)(e).
