The condonation of delay for non-filing of appeal is to be considered in the light of the facts of the case and existence of sufficient cause or reasonable cause. In the absence of any reason, delay cannot be condoned and where there was actual negligence and inaction which led to in inordinate delay, the delay cannot be condoned as held in Dy. CIT v. Jaya Publications [2010] 123 ITD 53 (Chennai).
As is apparent from the aforesaid observations in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without even analyzing the issues or recording his specific findings on the said issues raised in the grounds of appeal before him . A mere glance at the impugned order reveals that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and grossly violative of one of the facets of the rules of natural justice, namely, that every judicial/quasi- judicial body/authority must pass a reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points raised before it .
Since the housing project was completed after 31.3.2008, the assessee has not fulfilled the second requisite condition for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and therefore the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.
In the case of Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. (supra) it was held that once there was a net surplus from share dealing of market segment and future and option segments together and if there was a net profit therefrom the assessee was entitled for rebate of entire STT. In the case under consideration surplus from share dealing from market segment/ future and option segment is not there, but there is net income after setting off of losses.
It is now settled law that in order to sustain a penalty under section 271(1)(c) the department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee and part from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the department must have before it cogent material or evidence from which it can be inferred that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of such income.
Ground No. 3 relates to disallowance of prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 2,33,864/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that expenses of petty nature have been written off during the year, details of which have been furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of lower authorities.
Exemption under section 54E of the Income-tax Act cannot be denied to the assessee on account of the fiction created in section 50. It is true that section 50 is enacted with the object of denying multiple benefits to the owners of depreciable assets. However, that restriction is limited to the computation of capital gains and not to the exemption provisions.
CIT can review the grant of registration at any time because the words used in the provision are, and subsequently the Commissioner is satisfied, which means that registration can be reviewed at any given point of time. There is no question, that once the registration is granted, the issue of registration becomes functus officio.
From a reading of the provisions of section 50C(2), it is clearly mandated that if an assessee challenges or objects to the Assessing Officer adopting the guideli ne value of the property for stamp duty purposes in place of the stated consideration in the sale deed for the purposes of computing LTCG, then the Assessing Officer ought to refer the property for valuation to the Valuation Officer of the Income-tax department.
Plain reading of provisions of section 11(2)(b) lays down that 85 per cent of the income is to be applied to charitable purposes or set apart and the moneys accumulated or set apart can be invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5). Clause (x) of sub-section (5) to section 11 prescribes one of the modes of investment as ‘investment in immovable property’.
