-
Prima facie on the basis of coded language diary entries and retracted uncorroborated statement of an alleged beneficiary, perhaps, the additions made by the Assessing Officer is highly questionable.
MAYUR KANJIBHAI SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER – 25 (3) (1) AND ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22370 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82829&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal in assessee’s own case has taken a view that for the purpose of computing the capital employed for allowing deduction u/s 35D of the Act, the FCCBs should also be taken into consideration.
M/S SUBEX LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (1) (2) , BANGALORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22369 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82832&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the show cause notice, the AO has fairly mentioned to show cause and to appear within 7 days as to why a penalty u/s 271B should not be levied. AO also mentioned about the opportunity of hearing in person or through authorised representative. The assessee failed to substantiate and furnish plausible explanation, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not found to be plausible. No reasonable cause for not levying penalty was disclosed to the AO. AO levied minimum penalty prescribed u/s 271B.
M/S YASH REALTORS C/O G.P. MEHTA AND CO VERSUS THE DY. CIT-30 (3) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22368 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82833&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has nowhere examined the relevant facts qua assessee’s alleged undisclosed income as to whether the same represented any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other document in the light of the foregoing explanation. We also notice that their lordships judgment in Sudarshan Silk Mills does not deal with the impugned statutory provision but involved sec.271(1)(c) penalty proceedings only.
DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN AGARWAL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22367 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82836&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Considering the salient feature of the diamond industry, we are in agreement with Ld. CIT(A) that the margin derived by the diamond manufacturers are between 1.5% to 4.5% and in trading profits are in the range 1 to 3%. When the AO has not doubted the sales declared by the assessee and merely rejecting the purchases is not proper. Assessee must have taken advantage by taking accommodation entries. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the finding of Ld. CIT(A).
ACIT- 22 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS SUJAL H. SHAH (HUF)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22366 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82837&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits, unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed in filing of appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking bona-fides. In the case in hands, the branch has to act as per advice of Head Office, hence, which consumed sufficient period of time, therefore, it could not be regarded as negligence or of lacking of bona-fides.
STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC) GHAZIABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22365 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82820&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The purpose of section 10(37) it is not required that the assessee himself should carry out the agricultural operations on the land.
SHRI DINESHBHAI VITTALBHAI PATEL VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (3) (7) , SURAT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22364 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82821&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In respect of loan of ₹ 1 Lakh from Shri Parth Kumar Ghediya, the assessee has filed acknowledgement of return of income and copy of bank pass book. Therefore, the assessee has discharged his onus under section 68 of the Act. Similarly, the loan of ₹ 3 Lakh was taken from non-resident through banking channel. Hence, for this loan the onus has been discharged. Therefore, genuineness of the same cannot be doubted, accordingly, addition of ₹ 4 Lakh is deleted and balance addition is sustained.
SHRI NATHALAL H. PARMAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -8, SURAT.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22363 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82822&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reference to DVO made when no proceeding pending and re-opening made is devoid of any merit and based on wrong and misleading facts and contrary to record. Additional ground is neither maintainable as no argument and justification is given and how it has come to be raised in second round of assessment proceedings which was carried out at the behest of Tribunal for supplying reasons for reopening of assessment only, Nor this grounds of appeal was taken before the AO, hence, it is not maintainable in law and also liable to be dismissed on merits due to facts as discussed above.
M/S. ASHADEEP DEVELOPERS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAVSARI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22362 (ITAT-SURAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82823&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
On rejection of this application, it filed appeal against the assessment order instead of 154 order passed by the Assessing Officer because the scope in challenging the assessment order in appeal is far more wider than challenging the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act for rectification of any mistake.
MORE MOVER SALES PVT LTD, C/O. SHRI PINAKIN RAMANLAL SONI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) (4), AHMEDABAD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22361 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82824&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is not a manufacturer and is only a dealer in scrap. During the years under consideration, as noted in the assessment orders, the assessee had sold scrap, which included unburned transformer coils from various distribution companies of UPPCL. Whether a trader in scrap is liable to be fastened with liability to collect TCS under section 206C came up for consideration in the case of Navine Fluorine International Ltd. vs. ACIT(TDS).
M/S LALA BHARAT LAL & SONS VERSUS ITO (TDS) -1 LUCKNOW
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22360 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82828&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 147 of the Act has been made without any tangible material, but on pursuant of the same material which were available before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing of the original assessment. AO was explained during the course of original assessment vide letter dated 11.12.2012 to show that such loss is not speculative in nature. Further it was also pointed out to the Assessing Officer that similar claim of the assessee was duly accepted in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2009-10.
ACIT, CIRCLE-9 (1) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. FIEM INDUSTRIES LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22359 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82783&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has not recorded any satisfaction as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been fulfilled and have not issued show cause notice in this regard and hence, initiation of penalty proceedings are bad in law.
PRAMOD KUMAR VERSUS ACIT, NAJIBABAD, DIST. BIJNOR UP
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22358 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82789&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath of Mr. Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta during survey conducted at the premises of M/s. Herbicure. We have reproduced Question no. 22 and 23 and answers given by Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, wherein he admits to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. This information we should say can be the tool to start an investigation when the assessee made the claim for weighted deduction.
RAJDA POLYMERS VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CIRCLE-36, KOLKATA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22357 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82791&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
While ascertaining whether the companies are persistent loss making or not, the quantum of loss suffered during the period under consideration is immaterial. The Tribunal in various decisions have only considered the period of loss and not the quantum of loss.
DCIT-8 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22356 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · DCIT-8 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.
-
AO had proceeded to make the addition on the basis that the assessee had sold the shares of M/s. TUIHL which was a foreign company. However, during the appellate proceedings the assessee was able to produce documents to substantiate that it (M/s. TUIHL) was indeed is an Indian company which was duly registered with ROC, Kolkata since year 1981 and, therefore, is an Indian Company.
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-8 (1) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. MERLIN RESOURCES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22355 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82795&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reason for which the case was picked up for limited scrutiny relates to the AIR information on the cash deposits in the savings bank account. Assessing Officer did not obtain the written approval of the concerned Commissioner before extending the scope of scrutiny in respect of disallowance under Section 14A.
BOTHRA FINANCIAL SERVICES VERSUS ITO WARD-5 (4) , NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22354 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82797&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the revised return of income, there is no concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of any kind. Disallowance of claim u/s 54 of the I.T. Act, nowhere attract the penalty in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproduct Vs. CIT (P) Ltd. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, therefore, we set aside the same and delete the penalty.
LATE SHASHIRAJ KAPOOR (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE KUNAL KAPOOR) VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE 16 (1) , MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22353 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82763&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Without any specific enquiry on the subject by the assessing officer, the assessee has tried to pass off the information about how the said long term capital loss to be carried forward arose under a misleading heading of note on allowability of provision written back.
STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS PCIT-3, MUMBAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22352 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82767&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Poviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is applicable only to organization which is for advancement of any other object of general public utility. The proviso cannot be applied to an organization which is engaged in the first three limbs of the definition of charitable activity i.e. Relief to the poor, education and medical relief. Admittedly, assessee before us is perusing activity of education. Therefore proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act cannot be applied to the assessee trust.
M/S. ARVINTH CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (1) NAMAKKAL.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22351 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82768&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.