ITAT Hyderabad held that adhoc disallowance under section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of suspicion and surmises without adequate evidence not sustainable in law. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
As discussed above amendment and assessment/re-assessment signify two clearly distinct connotations importing distinct and separate meanings and encompassing different areas of action. We are thus not able to appreciate any merit in the view as canvassed by the Ld. Counsel.
Delhi High Court held that penalty imposed under section 276B of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside on account of section 278AA of the Income Tax Act as reasonable cause shown. Accordingly, petition by revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that since reasons for incomplete details in Form No. 10AB are curable in nature, assessee is given one more chance to advance documents before CIT(E) as to application for registration u/s. 12AB. Accordingly, matter restored for fresh registration.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271AA of the Income Tax Act is not imposable in view of section 273B of the Act since there was a reasonable cause for not reporting the said transaction in Form No. 3CEB as it was not considered to be an international transaction.
ITAT Jaipur held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of return before due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) not justified since aggregate annual receipts doesn’t exceed specified limit. Accordingly, exemption granted and appeal allowed.
Telangana High Court held that law of limitation [Limitation Act, 1963] applies even for claims under the Interest on Delayed Payment to the Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. Accordingly, instant appeal stands partly allowed.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the audit report filed in form 10B to be available with the Assessing Officer before the assessment proceedings take place, the requirement of Law is satisfied. Thus, exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that amount withdrawn by the assessee in the capacity of the partner from the partnership firm cannot be treated in the nature of loan and advance and cannot be covered within meaning of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that no addition under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act warranted due to difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration is less than tolerance band of 10% as per proviso to section 43CA. Also held that amendment providing tolerance band of 10% is retrospective in nature.
