ITAT Delhi held that assessee duly deducted TDS @2% u/s 194C Income Tax Act on payment of Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Charges as provisions of section 194I of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to this payment.
ITAT Kolkata held that enquiring on issues other than limited scrutiny issue, before conversion of limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny, is against the procedure laid down in Instruction No. 5/2016 of CBDT dated 14.07.2016. Accordingly, assessment order is quashed as nullity and bad-in-law.
ITAT Chennai held that AO duly verified the subject matter in re-assessment proceedings and concluded that LTCG declared by the assessee is genuine. Accordingly, setting aside the assessment order invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 on the same subject matter unjustified.
ITAT Allahabad held that passing an ex-parte appellate order without providing any opportunity even in case of faceless assessment proceedings unjustified as adherence to Principles of natural justice is one of the most important pillar of the effective judicial delivery system.
Supreme Court held that without the compressors and the pipes necessary to pump the dredged material, the cutter dredger would cease to function as such. Accordingly, benefit of NIL rate of duty in terms of notification no. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 duly available.
ITAT Chennai held that as computer and robotix kit is totally different, depreciation @15% and not @60% available on Robotix kits.
ITAT Amritsar held that non-receipt of intimation resulted into no action on the part of the assessee. Accordingly delay of 9 years condoned as the assessee had reasonable cause of non-receipt of intimation
ITAT Cochin held that as per condition mentioned in section 54F deduction is not available if the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset. The same should be interpreted to mean ownership of residential houses in India. Accordingly, deduction u/s. 54F not deniable if assessee owns two residential houses in USA
ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance inspite of repeated notices/ summons has led to gross negligence on the part of the assessee and accordingly matter restored back and cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed for negligent attitude during income tax proceedings.
Madras High Court held that section 125 is a residuary provision and as there are three specific non-compliances qua statutory requirements, penalty u/s. 125 of Rs. 25,000 each can be invoked for such non-compliances.
