ITAT Judgments - Page 2

Addition U/s. 2(22)(e) not sustainable if transaction is not of loan or advance

Shravan Choudhary Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Shravan Choudhary Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) If the transaction is a business transaction between the parties then the amount received under the said transaction cannot be held as loan or advance to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee explained the facts regarding the loan given by the assessee [&helli...

Read More

Interest on FDR for security/guarantee to companies for taking contracts is Business Income

Shri Devasamparambil Hassainar Kutty Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Shri Devasamparambil Hassainar Kutty Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) Revenue has not disputed the fact that the FDRs taken by the assessee are for the purpose of furnishing the security/guarantee to the companies those have awarded the contract to the assessee. Therefore, these FDRs were furnished as a performance guarantee by the assessee. Once th...

Read More

Reopening of assessment for non-existent and factually incorrect reasons was invalid

Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

Shri Ram Mohan Rawat Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Reasons recorded by the AO for formation of belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment are based on two counts. One, the assessee has made bogus purchases and the second, that the purchases are not verifiable as the as the  assessee has not filed the […]...

Read More

Transaction of loan between two independent parties cannot be taxed in the hands of Broker to transaction

Shiv Prakash Bajaj Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Shiv Prakash Bajaj Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) It is not in dispute that the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 30.00 lass on account of incriminating material found during the search, therefore, the transaction of loan between two independent parties even if through the service of the assessee being broker cannot be thrust upon the […]...

Read More

Section 54 exemption cannot be denied for mere completion of construction in short period 

Smt. Parminder Kaur Bedi Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) (ITAT Jaipur)

Accordingly when there was sufficient time with the assessee to complete the construction then the claim of the assessee that the house was constructed within a short period cannot be a reason for denial of the claim under section 54 of the Act....

Read More

Bogus Share Capital: ITAT criticises casual approach of Department

ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As two of the share applicant companies as per the information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, were the companies controlled  an infamous accommodation entry provider, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the lower authorities to have carried out [&h...

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied on ground which was not raised

Sh. B.R.Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

In this case assessee was asked to explain penalty on one count, whereas Penalty has been levied on other count. This itself called for quashing of penalty order passed by AO for all years under consideration. Therefore, penalty order was quashed and set aside....

Read More

All transactions in penny stocks cannot be regarded as bogus for SCAM in some penny stocks

Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue for consideration before us is whether in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning a...

Read More

Section 54EC Deduction cannot be disallowed for Investment not made with in prescribed time due to non-availability of REC Bonds

Heatex Products P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The claim of deduction under section 54EC could not be disallowed since assessee has demonstrated that non–investment in REC Bonds within the stipulated period was due to non–availability of bonds in the market....

Read More

No addition U/s. 68 for Cash amount explained by assessee as derived from sale of agricultural produce

Shri Naresh Kumar Vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi)

Where assessee had explained source of the cash deposit in the bank account by producing copies of the bills of sale of agricultural produce, which supported the explanation of assessee that assessee had received cash out of sale of agriculture produce, no addition under section 68 was warranted....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,353)
Company Law (5,138)
Custom Duty (7,476)
DGFT (4,040)
Excise Duty (4,274)
Fema / RBI (3,887)
Finance (4,045)
Income Tax (31,132)
SEBI (3,232)
Service Tax (3,477)

Search Posts by Date

November 2019
« Oct