Precilion Holdings Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: AO was not permitted to reopen assessment merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material available at the time of original scrutiny assessment as there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose truly and […]
AO was unjustified in making addition under section 41(1) on the reason that sundry creditors and other liabilities had ceased to exit as the opening balances of the liabilities were already admitted in the immediately preceding assessment years and the issue for revival was pending before BIFR because of which the creditors remain suspended but there had been no notice which could extinguish the existing right except to the extent that they became part of the sanctioned scheme.
Bharti Infratel Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Notice for re-assessment issued under Section 148 against assessee-company was quashed as assessee had made full and true disclosure of material facts; nothing was concealed, withheld and left to be factually discovered in the form of ‘material’ mentioned in detail in accounts and other evidence and […]
In order to carry out the charitable activities, the Chairman of the society needs accommodation otherwise he would have to be put in rented accommodation and hence the same eligible for benefit of section 11 and 12.
Where there were no incriminating materials found with respect to the disallowance of expenditure made by AO, addition could not be made under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Merely because PAN is active, it cannot be presumed that the assessee is alive and notice for reassessment be issued in the name of dead person, more particularly, when the department was made aware about the death of the assessee prior to issuance of the notice.
Forfeiture of advance/deposit suffered by the assessee-company towards proposed purchase of plot, unilaterally deducted by HSIDC was a capital loss not a revenue loss as loss incurred was in the transaction relating to and for acquisition of a land/plot which was a capital asset.
Ms. Edelweiss Capital Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the record, we found that assessee was carrying out business of commodity trading on un-recognised exchange and also business of trading in shares. Assessee has claimed set off of loss arising out of trading in shares against the income arising out of trading in commodities. The […]
whether the AO is correct in disallowance made u/s 14A irrespective of the fact that assessee do not have any Exempt Income during the Year?
Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case the notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee which is not the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. As per Section 153A, simple notice has to be given to the assessee. Thus, the contention of the Ld. […]
