News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« From the Courts »
 Delhi High Court issues Video-Conferencing Rules to streamline and consolidate process and its usage in Courts
 Shri Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, 599, 2nd Floor, Gandhi Cloth Market, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi
 Excess ITC has to be Refunded back to Dealer, can’t be carried Forward for Adjustment of Future Tax Liability: Madras HC
 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4828-29/24, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi
 Urmilla Ghanshyam Dass Ghiraiya A-21, First Floor, Lok Vihar, Pitampura Delhi Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Karnal
 Shri Surat Singh, VPO Bhapra, Samhalka, vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward : 4, Panipat.
 Dy. CIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. Vs. M/s. S.R. Credits Pvt. Ltd. 4, 1st Floor, Prahlad Lane, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi
 SC directs DRT to Transmit Rent received from Property attached to the Amrapali Account
 Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon- Vs. The ITO, TDS Ward, Gurgaon.
 M/s. Sheela Foam Ltd., (Foprmerly known as Sheela Foam Pvt.Ltd.), 37/2, Site-IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi.
 ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs Sh. Sohan Singh Dhingra (HUF), 85, Golf Links, New Delhi

Rakesh Aggarwal 66, Surya Kiran Building, K. G. Marg, Delhi Vs ITO Ward-48(1) New Delhi
May, 15th 2020

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/02/2019 passed by CIT(A)-16, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of the law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not admitting additional evidence filed before him.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of the law the Ld CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 is illegal and bad in law and consequently assessment framed also becomes illegal and bad in law.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of the law the Ld CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed by the Ld AO is illegal and bad in law as no valid notice u/s 143(2) has been

 

For more Information

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting