New User / Register | Bookmarks | Annual Subscription | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
           
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 44AF

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 44AF
 
Showing 1 to 15 of 20 Records
 

2014 (10) TMI 173 - ITAT LUCKNOW

Income Tax Officer Versus Shri Anokhe Lal, Prop. M/s Suraj Traders

Reassessment - Reasons recorded shows income escaped or not Held that:- CIT(A) recorded that the reasons do not show any income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment and while completing the assessment, no addition for any income escaping a ......

2014 (6) TMI 284 - ITAT DELHI

ITO, Ward-34(4), New Delhi Versus Pankaj Sharma Alias Yatinder Sharma

Additions regarding non-furnishing of complete details on account of concealed income Held that:- No return of income had been filed by the assessee for the year under consideration, contending that his income for the year under consideration was b ......

2014 (4) TMI 699 - ITAT MUMBAI

Smt. Ponidevi P. Choudhary, Gulab Sons Dairy Versus ITO Wd. 22(3) (3), Mumbai

Jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act Validity of order of relooking of the cash deposits Applicability of section 44AF of the Act - Held that:- An order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law - If an Income-tax Officer a ......

2014 (2) TMI 562 - ITAT MUMBAI

Shri Bhimraj D. Jain Versus Income Tax Officer 24(1) (3), Mumbai

Estimation of income - applicability of section 44AF - Disallowance for Non-furnishing of authentic vouchers and payments Held that:- The AO is of the view that the assessee does not claim the benefit under section 44AF and writes Nil profit in c ......

2013 (11) TMI 124 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Shanthi Fire Works Versus Income-tax Officer

Assessment u/s 147 - Held that:- The assessee himself has admitted 6 percent income on the sales effected which is more than that provided under section 44AF Assessed the income of the assessee at 6 percent on the sales effected as against 8 perce ......

2013 (11) TMI 62 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Dilipkumar Vasantlal Thakkar And others Versus ITO Ward 5(1), Surat

Presumptive income u/s 44AF of the Income Tax Act Presumptive income rejected and assessment was done u/s 144 - Assessees are individual and are in retail trading business of sarees and dress materials since many years additions of undisclosed i ......

2013 (2) TMI 287 - ITAT AGRA

Ashok Kumar Varshney Versus Income-tax Officer, 3(4), Hathras

Penalty u/s. 271-A - non-maintenance of books of account required u/s. 44AA - Held that:- The assessee did not maintain any books of account or other documents to show his correct income to support the income declared in the return. The assessee furn ......

2012 (11) TMI 137 - ITAT CUTTACK

Shri Subhrajee Mallick, Prop. M/s. BPL. Distributors Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Paradeep.

Retail trade u/s 44AF - Income below the rate of 5% as prescribed u/s 44AF - Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance and u/s.271(1)(c) holding a view the addition was the result of submission of inaccurate particulars of income in violation to the p ......

2012 (10) TMI 671 - ITAT, DELHI

Bhupinder Singh Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 33(4), New Delhi

Ex parte assessment u/s 144 - addition on unexplained cash deposited in his bank account - Held that:- The medical certificate dated 12.3.2010 for the period 4.10.2009 to 28.2.2010 mentioned complete bed rest. It is mentioned in the said certificate ......

2012 (9) TMI 581 - ITAT INDORE

ITO-1(2), Bhopal Versus Dharmendra Pandit

Addition made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 as the assessee failed to prove the source of such deposits in his bank account - assessee claims it to be out of sale proceeds of retail business - return filed u/s 44AF - Held that:- Admit ......

2012 (5) TMI 332 - ITAT, Kolkata

Kapil Dey Versus ITO

Addition of bank deposits u/s 69 - Assessee assessed u/s 44AF - assessee is engaged in the business of supply of building material on retail basis and submitted its return of income as on 31.03.2004, 16.11.2005 and 31.03.2007 for the relevant assessm ......

2009 (2) TMI 254 - ITAT MADRAS-C

Smt. A, Rukmani. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward Iv(1), Tiruchirapalli.

Retail Business ......

........... has wrongly chosen to apply the provision of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to complete the assessment and determine the total business income in dispute which is contrary to the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As per the citation, cited by the learned counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that the facts of the case decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench is identical to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Assessing Officer has wrongly applied the provision of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee and the learned first appellate authority has also wrongly upheld the same without going through the facts and law relating to the issue in dispute. Therefore, we cancel the impugned order dated 20-6-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by accepting the appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

2007 (8) TMI 496 - ITAT COCHIN

Leyland Automobiles Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-II, Kollam

Retail business ......

........... required under section 44AB though belatedly. Otherwise it would have specified/mentioned in the section itself to that effect. Further on many occasions the various Courts have held that filing of audit report is only procedural in nature and the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption claimed by it, to quote an example is the decision in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam 75 Taxman 529 (Mds.). 9. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the lower authorities went wrong in totally denying the benefit of sub-section (5) of section 44AF to the assessee in this case. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer not to apply the provisions of section 44AF(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it is not the remedy for the non/late filing of the audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act, before the specified date. In this view of the matter we allow the appeals of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

2007 (8) TMI 399 - ITAT PUNE-B

Darshan Enterprises. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel.

For Concealment Of Income ......

........... equences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One must not permit his imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. 19. In the present case, the assessee-firm was admittedly engaged in retail business and his total turnover did not exceed Rs. 40 lakhs and, therefore, it was governed by the deeming provisions of sub-section (1) of section 44AF. And because of the non obstante clause the provisions of sections 28 to 43C do not apply. Therefore, it could not be said that there was any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the part of the assessee within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty is accordingly cancelled. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

2006 (4) TMI 192 - ITAT COCHIN

Leyland Automobiles. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-ii, Kollam.

Retail Business ......

........... red under section 44AB though belatedly. Otherwise, it would have specified/mentioned in the section itself to that effect. Further on many occasions the various Courts have held that filing of audit report is only procedural in nature and the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption claimed by it, to quote an example is the decision in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam 1994 75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). 9. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the lower authorities went wrong in totally denying the benefit of sub-section (5) of section 44AF to the assessee in this case. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer not to apply the provisions of section 44AF(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as it is not the remedy for the non/late filing of the audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act, before the specified date. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

 
   
 
 
1..
 

 

what is new what is new

Updates Knowledge Sharing Subscription Communication Newsletters More Options




Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.