Gujarat High Court held that reassessment order passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and set aside due to non-consideration of the reply in the assessment order. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back to AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that claim of exemption under section 54F vide return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 needs to be evaluated by AO. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of J.A.O. for making necessary verification for exemption claim.
Vide the present petition it is contested that the show cause notice has been issued on 26thSeptember, 2023. The same is stated to have been uploaded on the Additional notices tab and the show cause notice did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner.
ITAT Delhi held that denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing of Form 10B is not justifiable since condition of filing Form 10B is directory in nature and not mandatory. Accordingly, appeal allowed and exemption granted.
ITAT Raipur restored the matter to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as intimation of fixation of hearing was sent via email, and no physical/ hard copy was sent, inspite of specifically stating in Form 35 that all notices/ communication to be sent in a mode otherwise through email.
ITAT Pune held that the assessee institute is substantially funded by the Central Government and hence the assessee institute would be entitled to exemption by virtue of provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that no addition in respect of share premium under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since necessary evidence along with valuation certificate as per rule 11UA(2)(b) of the Income Tax Rules already furnished. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that expenditure towards supply of food packets for employees which was subjected to GST shall not be considered as contract and hence provisions of section 194C shall not apply.
Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income Tax Officer and his view that there has been escapement of income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year.
Karnataka High Court held that assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act untenable since mandatory requirement of section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act not complied. Accordingly, writ petition allowed and notice u/s. 148 quashed.
