Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Anil Arora held that reference to DVO for valuation of a property itself was invalid ,when AO’s conclusion/reasoning was not based on any material discovered or seized during the search operations.
Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Pritam Das Narang held that Amount received by a prospective employee ‘as compensation for denial of employment,’ is a capital receipt . In case of assessee , where there was no commencement of employment
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Tristar Intech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there should be concealment of income on the part of assessee. In the given case AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Venus Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT that the Assessing Officer has no power to replace the value of the consideration agreed between the parties with any fair market value or estimation.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT that penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be imposed in those cases where no specific charges are mentioned in penalty notice. In the given case the AO has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued
ACIT Vs. Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur)- It is contended that the order of the ld. CIT(A) will reveal that no specific defects in the books of account were found by the AO. The assessee’s working site being at remote place, cash payment to labourer through self made vouchers
ACIT Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur)- he AO disallowed the payment on the ground that though the amount was paid by the assessee but was not paid within the due date as given under the respective Acts of GPF, CPF and ESI.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Uday C Tamhankar that the submission of assessee that the assessment years up to 2006-07 falls in the category of concluded assessments, i.e., assessments of those years were not pending on the date of initiation of search is a valid submission.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of M/s Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that the concealment penalty levied by the CIT (A) in this case is on the issues which are not free from debate. In our opinion, the assessee would have got relief in most of issues relating to additions based on the estimations
Delhi High Court held In the case of Director of Income Tax & Principal CIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd. that the service tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it.
