2015 (12) TMI 26 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Duncans Industries Ltd.
Legal right to the AO for opportunity of being heard at the time of hearing appeal - Held that - AO has not been given notice of hearing by Ld. CIT(A) as is required by the provision of Sec. 250(1) of the Act. So in view of the above factual position, we restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to complete the appellant proceedings within a period not exceeding three months from the date of service of the order. It is also not out of place to mention that the notice should be served to AO as required under the la ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 72 - ITAT CHENNAI
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I (1) , Coimbatore Versus Shri NB Aathishankar
Income from cash deposits - CIT(A) treated as assessee s business turnover in part and balance as income from other sources - Held that - CIT (A) was justified in treating ₹ 20 lakhs of cash deposits as assessee s business turnover since the assessee admitted income of ₹ 7,69,907/- is accepted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On a turnover of ₹ 20 lakhs, if ₹ 7,69,907/- is treated as net profit, it amounts to Net Profit ratio of 38.5 (7,69,907 x 100 20,00,000) which is fairly acceptable. The Ld. Assessing Officer treatment of ₹ 10 lakhs turnover from the assessee s w ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 731 - ITAT DELHI
Alka Mithal Versus ADIT, International taxation, Noida
Deductions as claimed by assessee U/S 57 and 80C denied - invoking the provisions of section 115D - Held that - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order does not meet the requirements of law. The specific grievances of the assessee though have been reproduced in the impugned order however while arrived at a conclusion why they cannot to be accepted has not been addressed. The statutory mandate of section 250(6) of the Act is found to be not fulfilled. In view thereof, the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored back to the file to the CIT(A) with th ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 784 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Versus M/s Max India Ltd.
Expenses for setting off new business and fee paid - ITAT treated as as revenue in nature - Held that - The expenditure in dispute incurred by the assessee as revenue in nature and allowable as deduction because the assessee has incurred the aforesaid expenses on different businesses owned by the assessee including health care business which constituted one business only. As regards the payment made to McKinsey & Company the expenditure incurred was commensurate with the services rendered specially as it happened to be a world renowned firm. The learned first appellate authority has rightl ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 1032 - ITAT DELHI
Complete News & Entertainment Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi
Bogus capital share introduction - accommodation entries - CIT(A) proceeded to partly accept some of the claims of the assessee and partly rejected and also restored the issue back to the file of the AO for verification on facts.Held that - As far as the statutory mandate is concerned, section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act which sets out the procedure which the CIT(A) in appeal is required to follow it is seen that the statute does not permit the Ld. CIT(A) to remand the issue to the AO. The statute contemplates that an enquiry may be required which he himself may enquire into or may direct the ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 777 - ITAT DELHI
Sh. Jai Prakash Garg, Prop. M/s Prakash Trading Company, Muzaffarnagar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) Muzaffarnagar
Legality of notice issued and order passed u/s 154 - AO disallowed cash purchases made at ₹ 33,70,800/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act which was added to the income of the assessee vide order dated 17.6.2014 passed u/s. 154 - Held that - We find considerable cogency in the submissions of the assessee s counsel that assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act after considering the relevant material and after appropriate reasoning hence there is no mistake apparent from record which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act therefore the notice U/s 154 and order passed are illegal, ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 Versus Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Pvt. Ltd.
Power of the AO to pass the Order - CIT(A) held that the Assessment Order dated 21st January, 2010 for AY 1998-99 had attained finality and thus, the AO had no jurisdiction to pass another Assessment Order for the same Assessment Year confirmed by ITAT - Revenue, contends that the order dated 20th January, 2010 was a mistake, as the AO had not implemented the directions of the Tribunal to re-examine the nature of relevant expenditure incurred by the Assesse - Held that - A plain reading of the language of Section 292B of the Act indicates that it would have no application in the facts and circ ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT CHENNAI
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Puducherry Versus M/s. Ram Thanga Nagai Maligai,
Penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) read with section Sec. 250 - Held that - From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the assessee has not concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income filed before the Revenue. The excess stock found at the time of search was taken into account for arriving at the income of the assessee during the relevant assessment year as observed by Ld. Assessing Officer in his assessment order. The Ld. CIT (A) also observed in his order that the appellant s case do not fall under Explanation (3) to Section-271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 362 - ITAT JAIPUR
M/s Siraigo Pharma Pvt Ltd And Others Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur And Others
Rejection of books of accounts - trading addition - Held that - During the course of search, no incriminating documents were found and seized. The ld Assessing Officer rejected the book result for non-producing of the stock register but various courts has held that non-maintaining of stock register or not producing the stock register before the Assessing Officer is not sufficient ground to reject the Book result U/s 145(3) of the Act. - Further, the assessee company is in manufacturing of medicine where Drug Control Act also applicable. According to that Act also, he has to maintain various re ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 935 - ITAT DELHI
Employees’ Provident Fund Organization Versus Addl. CIT (T.D.S) , Ghaziabad
Non deduction of TDS on payments made on account of settlement on withdrawal accumulated balance under Rule 9, 10 of part A of Schedule IV of the I.T. Act, 1961 - maintainability of appeal for stay orders - Held that - Law is well settled that the first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has power to grant stay. In exercise of this power, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has passed the impugned order obviously, under the provisions of Section 250 of the Act since there is no other provision of the Act under which Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can p ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 424 - ITAT AGRA
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Agra Versus Krafts Palace
Admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) - whether in violation of rule 46A - Held that - Powers of the Board, which have been vested in them for carrying out for the purposes of the Act, have to be exercised in such a judicious manner so as not to make any statutory provision redundant and nugatory. The rules made in exercise of these powers should also not be interpreted in such a manner as to narrow down, dilute or curtail the statutory powers, conferred on the CIT(A), by the provisions of s. 250(4) or (5) of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, a harmonious interpretation of s. 250, even r/w ....... - .......
2015 (3) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus M/s Jansampark Advertising And Marketing (p) ltd.
Unexplained credit u/s 68 - commission paid on entry taken from entry provide - Reopening of assessment - Held that - The CIT (Appeals), as also the ITAT, in the case at hand, in our view, unjustifiably criticized the AO for not having confronted the assessee with the facts regarding return of some of the summons under Section 131 or not having given opportunity for the identity of all the share applicants to be properly established. The order sheet entries taken note of in the order of CIT (Appeals) seem to indicate otherwise. The order of CIT (Appeals), which was confirmed by ITAT in the sec ....... - .......
2015 (4) TMI 940 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rallis India Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) -XXI, Mumbai and Others
Jurisdiction of CIT(A) to make a reference to DVO to determine the FMV of the property - The Revenue insists on the fact that the power is being exercised only under Section 250(4) of the Act alone. - Held that - Power to make further enquiry under Section 250(4) of the Act can only be in respect of issues which arise under the Act and for which specific provision have been made and the Assessing Officer has failed to do what he ought to have done. Thus, this power of enquiry though very wide has to find its source in one of the substantive provisions of the Act. It is in the context of substa ....... - .......
2014 (11) TMI 847 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Dy. CIT. -VI, Kanpur Versus M/s. MKU (Armours) Pvt. Ltd.
Violation of Rule 46A Admission of additional evidences without providing opportunity to heard or not - Held that - CIT(A) noted that the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 11/06/2010, sworn by Mr. Manish Khandelwal, Director of the assessee company - CIT(A) has examined the authenticity of the said affidavit and for this purpose, he has also examined the affidavit of technical staff CIT(A) also noted that in compliance to his direction, Shri Manish Khandelwal attended with Shri G. C. Mishra, the technical staff and their statements were recorded on oath - the statements were recorded of Sh ....... - .......
2014 (11) TMI 149 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shakir Ahmad Versus Commissioner of Income Tax And Another
Mandatory provisions u/s 250 complied or not Proceedings to be remitted to CIT(A) instead of AO - Whether the Tribunal is justified in reversing the order of the CIT (A) and restoring the order of AO on the ground that CIT (A) has without verifying books of accounts or without admitting additional evidence has given relief on merits to the assessee ignoring that CIT (A) in exercise of power u/s 250 has called for remand report before allowing the relief to the assessee Held that - The Tribunal found fault with the CIT(A) for not having either verified the books and for not having furnished an ....... - .......