Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of diamond by cutting and polishing of rough diamond and sale thereof. During assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee has made 20 transactions of foreign remittance.
In the instant case, assessee had not filed any return within stipulated time framed u/s 139(1), but had filed the return u/s 139(8A) (updated return) on 31.03.2023 along with Form 67 filed online on the said date claiming FTC.
Bunching of show cause notices did not cause any prejudice to assessee as it was open to assessee to take up any contention peculiar to any particular year in the reply to the show cause notice.
Filing of Form 10CCB required for claiming deductions under Section 80IA before the due date for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) was only directory and not mandatory for the year under consideration.
Assessee, aggrieved by the decision, appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of AO. Assessee dissatisfied with the order of CIT(A) appealed before Tribunal.
The Officers found that factory was operational. On being demanded, Sujit Kumar Bera produced all the gold available in the factory. Total quantity of gold was found to be 2417 grams.
There was no provision under the DTVSV Act that empowered a Designated Authority to reopen a concluded settlement. Once a final certificate was issued under Section 5(1), all disputes with regard to the ‘tax arrear’ stood concluded.
Assessee was justified in objecting to jurisdiction of AO and transfer of his case, which obviously could not have been adjudicated upon without affording an opportunity of hearing and disclosing to him the reasons for not accepting his point of view.
CIT(E) was not justified in denying assessee’s applications for final registration u/s 12AB / final approval u/s 80G as assessee had done only charitable activities till now and not undertaken any activity contemplated by object No. 2 & 3.
An amendment to the agreement on September 24, 2014, revised the terms of consideration. Assessee argued that possession of the property was never transferred as evidenced by ownership documents like the 7/12 extract and electricity bills.
