Once the statute provided for payment of interest and the stipulated conditions were fulfilled, the respondent/revenue would be obliged, in law, to pay the interest alongwith the refund. The fact that assessee submitted a communication that it will not claim interest, would not bar assessee from claiming the interest, as the law otherwise allowed for the same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of DKNV Engineering Pvt Ltd, stating that credit denial based on photocopies of invoices is a procedural lapse, not a valid reason.
Disallowance on delay in payment toward employee’s contribution to PF u/s 36(1)(va) via u/s 143(1) deleted in absence of adequate intimation to the assessee.
HC upheld the cancellation of a gift deed after noting that the possession was not handed over and that the deed was not acted upon by the parties.
Existence of books of account maintained by assessee was a condition precedent for making addition under section 68. Where assessee had not maintained books of account, there was no legal scope to invoke provisions of section 68 and as such, addition made on such premise was to be deleted.
Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shetty Constructions v. ACIT has held that rejection of books of account is a precondition for making reference to the DVO.
The document impounded herein is duly supported by all the correct entries as per assessee’s stand itself, addition u/s 68 tenable
Even if the assessee was unrepresented, CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues before him based on the case record before him but unfortunately, CIT(A) chose not to do so and dismissed the assessee’s appeal without examining the case on merits. Therefore, the condonation of delay was allowable and substantial justice required that the issues should be re-examined by CIT(A).
It is not open to the First Appellate Authority i.e., CIT(A) to set aside the order of the A.O. and order a remand or to give any directions. Hence, CIT(A) was not justified in giving direction to the A.O. to levy penalty u/s. 271AAA of the I.T. Act, 1961.
ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of Om Balaji Stores, finding no justification for disallowance u/s 40A(3). Detailed analysis of the case and the importance of documentary evidence.
