2015 (3) TMI 647 - ITAT DELHI
Jeewan Chandra Punetha Cloth Merchant Khari Bazar Versus DCIT, Nainital Utrakhand
Suppressed profit - AO in upholding addition that out of the total business activity carried on in the same premises, 50 belonging to the father and son respectively - CIT(Appeal) sustaining addition to the extent of 50 of the business - Held that - .....
2015 (2) TMI 254 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XIII Versus CHANDER PRAKASH PABREJA
Income from undisclosed sources - assessee's entitlement to the benefit of Section 44AF as had voluntarily disclosed receiving Rs. 16,07,240/- during the course of the assessment - assessee urged that the AO made no effort to discern as to the ch.....
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 ass.....
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 bel.....
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 actin.....
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 colum.....
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 income.....
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 .....
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.....
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 percent .....
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 pr.....
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.
........... 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 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.