Ms. G. Shoe Exports Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, admittedly the Tribunal order was passed beyond three months from hearing. No reason whatsoever for the delay has been recorded. As held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court above, such delay is incurable and even administrative clearance cannot cure the same. As held by […]
M/s. Pratik Syntex Private Ltd Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant appeal before us, the inspector was deputed by the AO to make field enquiries who could not locate these three shareholders and the assessee also could not furnish the current addresses of these three new shareholders. These in the instant case before us, […]
It is clear from bare reading of section 143(1) that change of status as done by AO does not fall within any of the clauses thereof. Also, it could not be said that change of status of assessee fell within the meaning of expression ‘an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return’ as laid down in Explanation (a) to section 143(1). Accordingly, intimation issued under section 143(1) changing the status of assessee was not in accordance with law and AO was, therefore, directed to modify the intimation accepting the return of income as it was.
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-XX, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144C(3) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. In the grounds of appeal, following grounds have been raised.
That the order passed by Assessing Officer (‘AO’) dated 30.12.2016 as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) dated 29.12.2017 and the additions/disallowances made and upheld are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted.
Activity of Body Building undertaken by the Applicant, carried out on the chasis supplied by the principal in the capacity of a job worker, would amount to ‘Composite Supply’ as define under CGST Act 2017/MPGST Act 2017;
The question, however, as we see it, is not the amount at which the land was actually sold, which is in the following year, but whether the cash deposit of Rs.49 lacs could be said to form part of the transaction of sale of land by the assessee’ s father. S
Investments on whom dividend received, though chargeable to tax but allowed as rebate in view of DTAA agreement cannot be included for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act.
The assessee company was engaged in the business of Developing, Maintaining and Operating of Infrastructure Facilities. Return declaring an income of Rs. 29,53,100/- was filed on 30/09/2009. The same was processed u/s 143(1) on 13/09/2010. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was sent on 20/08/2010.
