Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass […]
The ITAT noted that document was silent as to payer and payee of amount in question nor does it disclose that payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that document is in handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures.
The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to correct the error in mentioning the Permanent Account Number (PAN for short) of one of the agencies to whom the petitioner had made multiple payments during the relevant financial period for which deduction of tax at source was necessary.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
According to section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the Act), where a return has been furnished under section 139 of the Act, or in response to a notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer(AO) or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income
In the present case there was no illegality committed by the Department in not issuing to the Assessee a notice under Section 226 (3) (iii) of the Act simultaneously with or prior to the notice issued to its bank under Section 226 (3) (i) of the Act for recovery of the tax demand from its account.
An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record
A welcome decision of Mumbai ITAT in respect of the charging of capital gain on the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee
The Court is not prepared to accept the plea of the Revenue that merely because a panchnama was drawn up on 15thMay, 2007 showing that the search was ‘finally concluded’ on that date, it postponed the period of limitation in terms of Section 153B (2) (a) of the Act.
In view of the undisputed fact that a sum of Rs. 18,63,61,346/- was offered to tax though it was originally debited to the profit and loss account during the AY 2011-12,and because of the cost reimbursement agreement between the assessee and the parent entity on 18.05.2012 pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 13,21,53,000/- and Rs. 5,44,13,490/- was credited to the profit and loss account
