-
Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account.
-
Rule 46A. The assessee submitted that additional evidence before the CIT(A), but the CIT(A) has not admitted the same. The CIT(A) should have looked into the additional evidences while arriving at the proper conclusion which the CIT(A) failed to do so. In the present case, the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act which shows that the Assessing Officer has not seen any evidences while making additions. Thus, we are admitting the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A). ITAT DELHI on May 15, 2020 AY 2010-11. Rakesh Aggarwal vs. ITO
-
ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ADMAN ADVERTISING vs ACIT
-
ITAT DELHI on 20th Feb; 2020 held that when Documents / information found during the course of search under section 132(1) of the Act- permissible proceedings- only under section 153C of the Act and hence assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is not valid notice and therefore the order passed is annulled. Ananya Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that In case of bogus bill found where actual purchases were made by cash, method of peak credit as adopted by AO would not be a suitable method rather an adhoc estimated addition would meet cause of justice
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that to make addition in Section 69C it is postulated that source of expenditure incurred not found satisfactory by Ld. AO. When purchases were reversed by the assessee in subsequent years and the transactions of purchases as well as sales were stated to be mere paper entries. The such stock purchased was reflected in closing stock. Thus it is circular transactions and are mere paper entries and no addition can be made u/s 69C.
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Additions merely on the basis of statements made during survey proceedings u/s 133A would not hold much evidentiary value unless the same were backed up by some cogent corroborative material.
-
ITAT Mumbai on 16th March 2020 held that the Retraction of a statement of a particular person by another person statement is bad and disregarded for all purposes.