Even if a house property is vacant for the whole of the current year, but it is let out in earlier years, then benefit of vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) must be allowed and no addition towards notional rent can be made by applying section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Vivek Jain v ACIT [337 ITR 74 (AP)] distinguished.
ITAT Chennai held that delay of 373 days in filing of an appeal due to prolonged hospitalization and surgery and ultimate demise of Chartered Accountant handling tax matter is reasonable cause and hence condoned. Further, matter remitted since disallowance towards employee contribution to ESI/PF needs to be factually verified.
Pune ITAT voids Rs 1 crore penalty against Karia Builders. Tribunal rules penalty proceedings are invalid if the underlying assessment is legally flawed and highlights the need for proper sanction for reassessment notices.
Calcutta High Court held that delay of 180 days in filing of an appeal before Tribunal condoned since Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and delay of 180 days cannot be stated to be inordinate nor the assessee can be stated to have been not diligent in prosecuting matter.
The ITAT Pune ruled on whether land acquisition compensation received by a partnership firm is taxable, clarifying the scope of exemptions under the RFCTLAAR Act and related circulars.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against a penalty deletion, ruling it was not maintainable due to a low tax effect. The Tribunal held that the new CBDT Circulars, which do not include an exception for audit objections, are applicable to pending appeals.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a rectification order against Avia Xpert, ruling the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions was illegal due to a lack of prior notice and the issue being a debatable matter at the time.
ITAT Rajkot held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act for not getting books of accounts audited cannot be sustained since assessee has filed return u/s. 44AD and there is no need to maintain books of accounts u/s. 44AD.
The ITAT Pune ruled on whether an assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue concerning cash deposits during the demonetization period, providing key clarifications on Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that since there was no effective service of orders upon the assessee as the order sent by the department went to spam folder. Thus, delay in filing of an appeal condoned and matter restored back to CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
