ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act for issue of delayed payment of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC justifiable as AO’s failure to examine has rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of provision for leave encashment unwarranted as provision was not debited to the profit & loss account of the assessee but was inherited by the assessee on account of restructuring exercise of GEB.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as interest-free funds exceeds loan to the subsidiary and loan was advanced for commercial expediency.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the agricultural nature of the land at the time of sale is determinative, regardless of the buyer’s intended use. Thus, land sold was agricultural land and hence doesn’t attract capital gain.
ITAT Delhi rules that filing Form 67 is not mandatory for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claims, and procedural violations shouldn’t deny the right to FTC.
ITAT Chandigarh rules that the assessee cannot be denied Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to delay in filing Form No. 67.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that claim of deduction u/s 80P is admissible only when the claim of deduction u/s 80P is made in the return of income filed on or before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1). Thus, deduction u/s. 80P inadmissible when return is filed after due date prescribed u/s. 139(1).
CBDT had issued instructions/notification for examining the specific cases regarding cash deposits during the demonetisation period. However, both the lower authorities had not done so and therefore, the matter was remanded for re-examination.
AO noted that the assessee was unable to satisfied the ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, AO applied section 68 and added into total income and applied tax rate as per section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly assessed income was determined at Rs.75,49,764.
ITAT Bangalore held that the addition of provision of bad and doubtful debts as per P&L account to determine the book profits u/s. 115JB of the act is not warranted as actual write off would not be hit by clause (i) of explanation to section 115JB.
