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.
It is seen that the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts. The first item is of Rs. 20,50,000/- claimed to have been received from farmers out of advances made in the preceding year.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated concludes that the notice is issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind and accordingly imposition of penalty is bad in law.
The profit margin forgone by assessee could not be held to be expenditure in creating intangible or goodwill as there was no expenditure incurred by assessee except those that were set out in the profit and loss account and disallowing such expenditure by AO and consequently arriving at a positive total income chargeable to tax was without any basis and not in accordance with law.
ITAT Delhi held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act can be allowed only if the employees’ share in the provident fund and ESI fund is deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated in respective Acts.
AO observed that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.17.00 lakh in his bank account on different dates during the demonetization period.
Divya Raghavan Vijayan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) even though in the order sheet it is written by the ACIT Circle-3 Kalyan that he had issued the 143(2) notice on Aug 30th 2015, but in the same file, I find that the Chief Commissioner has transferred the jurisdiction of assessee’s case from ITO ward-33, Thane to […]
ACIT Vs Ajit Anantrao Pawar (ITAT Mumbai) The facts stated hereinabove by the ld. AR are not in dispute with regard to framing of two independent section 153C assessments for each assessment year. It is not in dispute that six independent appeals were filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and accordingly, numbered thereon […]
