NCLAT Delhi has upheld the decision of adjudicating authority (NCLT, Jaipur) who uphold decision of adjudicating authority (NCLT, Jaipur).
After considering submissions made by both parties it is held that there is no dispute that the appellant stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by the CD which has already been admitted into CIRP
In the matter abovementioned ITAT Pune after relying upon the decision of jurisdictional HC held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a) (i) on the Interest earned by assessee.
Assessee being a real estate developer, allotted 10060 equity shares as per the fair market value (FMV) computed in accordance with Sec.56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11U / 11UA.
Assessee has preferred an appeal before Addl/JCIT(A) who allowed the appeal by observing that the ICDS adjustments were made under the head ICDS-I & ICDS-VI relates to accounting policies and changes in the exchange rates.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT remanded back the matter to CIT (A) after observing that assessee was not able to attend the hearing before CIT (A) due to mismanagement of its state of affair.
On appeal CIT (A) observed that assessee used different PAN in Form 35 instead of one used for reassessment. Assessee neither file return in response to notice u/s 148 not it complied with the statutory notices.
Present appeals filed by assessee before CIT (A) against the order passed u/s 143 (1). It is the case of the assessee had been allotted two PANs since AY 2002-03 and the assessee filed income tax return under one PAN No. and Second PAN was inactive
In the abovementioned matter ITAT remanded the matter to AO after observing that assessee failed to apply under rule 46 A (Additional Evidence) of the IT Rules.
Assesse being a partnership firm, engaged in the business as dealer in petroleum products who filed its return at Rs.3,00,950/-. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
