Shyam Bihari Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards addition of Rs. 20,38,472/- on account of payment of interest to bank which the assessee has mentioned in the profit and loss account. The revenue authorities have noticed that a loan (liability) of Rs. 1,11,73,554/- against which the assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 20,38,472/- and […]
TDS return filed beyond time cannot be declared as non est in law and that the CIT(A) does not have powers of enhancement in an appeal against an order under section 200A. The CIT(A) cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal, which was as to whether fee under section 234E can be levied or not; and not the question, whether the return of TDS filed by the assessee was non est in law? The CIT(A) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law.
S.D. Traders Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) It has been argued by the counsel for the Revenue that CIT (A) has not travelled beyond the books of accounts and during appeal it was found that only confirmation was available of five parties and the rest of the creditors were untraceable, hence the addition of the […]
Aramark India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) case discusses the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, citing non-existing asset and lack of enduring benefit.
PCIT Vs Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued […]
Refund applications could not be denied merely because the assessment orders were not challenged by assessee or reassessment of the bill of entries was not done
No enquiries were conducted by the AO/learned CIT(A) even during appellate/remand proceedings . The books of accounts were not rejected by authorities below nor any defect is pointed out by the AO/learned CIT(A) in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. There is no allegation by Revenue that the assessee claimed any bogus expenses or any attempt is made to defraud Revenue. Under these circumstances keeping in view factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that aforesaid adhoc disallowance of expenses under various heads of expenses to the tune of 10% of the total expenses incurred by the assessee under these heads of expenses is not warranted
Notice under section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by AO was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was also issued against amalgamating company. This was a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in section 292B. Accordingly, assessment order framed in the name of non-existing person was void ab initio.
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 by considering the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Penalty U/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable for failure to get accounts audited where the turnover / gross receipts exceeds the prescribed limit. Many times it happens that the turnover as per the regular books of accounts remains under the prescribed limit and as such the assessee do not gets the accounts audited U/s. 44AB.
