Hon’ble Rajasthan HC has held in the case of CIT Vs. Ram Singh that the Judgment of ITAT in various cases passed by this case are stereo typed, non-speaking, unreasoned, arbitrary and whimsical andremand the matter back to the ITAT to re-visit the issue afresh de-novo
If the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
Recently P&H High Court has held in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT that identification of the flat or physical delivery of possession is irrelevant as right to hold properly stands crystalised upon allotment. The allotment of a particular flat and delivery of its possession would relate back to the allotment.
The assessing officer had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case where PAN Number was not provided by the deductee. There were in all 30706 cases in which the PAN Number was missing or was incorrectly stated.
ALLAHABAD High Court Rejects Revenue’s denial of Sec 80G(5) recognition on the ground that the assessee-trust did not commence one of the activities mentioned in object clause- The fact that the assessee was still to commence the activity of establishing a hospital for imparting medical treatment would not by itself result in the rejection of the claim for recognition.
Section 43B which permits a deduction for payments made upto the due date for filing the ROI applies only to the employer’s contribution to the provident fund etc. It does not apply to the employees’ contribution.
Change in method of accounting was bona fide and with the compliance of the Accounting Standard – AS 9 – Revenue Recognition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and provisions of S.5 of the Act.
Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 1.12.2009 were that the assessee is a trust and during the year disclosed a capital gain of Rs.87,29,080/-. It was informed that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- in Rural
The constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been challenged in the Kerala High Court in the case of Narath Mapila LP School vs. UOI WP (C) No. 31498/2013(J). Vide an interim order dated 18.12.2013, the High Court has admitted the Petition and granted a stay of proceedings for a period of two months.
Penalty levied u/s 271AAA on members of AOP is rightly deleted by tribunal in a case where income initially disclosed and declared in the hands of AOP is subsequently disclosed in the individual hands of members forming AOP. CIT Vs. VIRENDARA KUMAR GUPTA (DELHI HIGH COURT)
