Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Pradeep G. Vora v/s ITO has dealt in depth about the power of the tribunal to admit new additional ground and has held that tribunal Cannot be Precluded from handling any point (facts or law) which pertains to the assessment even if it is raised for the first time before it and was not raised before the authorithies below by observing as under:-
The Assessing Officer has though power to re–assess but no power to review and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, then in the garb of the re–assessment, review of earlier orders would take place.
As per sub-section (1) of section 282, the notice is to be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it was a summons issued by Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). The relevant provision for effecting of service by different modes are contained in rules 17, 19 and 20 of Order V of CPC. Rules 17, 19 and 20
Reassessment proceedings are bad in law in as much as the AO sought to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years and not followed the procedures laid down in section 151(2) of the Act for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
Assessee-Company,engaged in the business of life insurance,filed its return of income on 29/10/2005 declaring total income at Rs.3 1.19 lakhs. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30/03/2007.Later on a notice u/s 147 of the Act was issued by the AO.From the assessment records
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had sold her immovable property being residential flat No.101, 1st floor, Hill Queen, Pali Malla Road, Bandra, Mumbai for Rs. 1,55,00,000/- on 30.08.2006 and after indexation Long Term Capitasl Gains( LTCG) of Rs.1,26,20,624/- were determined.
ITAT held in its order that ICAI CPE programmes might have failed to achieve the desired objectives with some of the Chartered Accountants. It further said that it is hightime that the ICAI should take note of these practicalities and should take corrective steps in order to maintain/restore the high standards and quality expected from a C.A. professional.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has furnished before us the details of transactions in shares made by the assessee in the year under consideration as well as in the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 to show that the nature of transactions including their frequency
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT held that Purchases can not be termed as bogus by the AO merely because the supplier was listed as a hawala dealer by the Vat authorities.
We find from the audit report that the expenses in respect of exempt income was shown at Rs. Nil,that the assessee had debited direct expenses on account of dematerialisation and STT in the capital account and in the profit and loss account,that AO had presumed that the assessee had must
