ITAT Chennai held that deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act restricted to only for one floor (3rd floor) as assessee failed to establish that two floors (3rd and 4th floor) is one residential house.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received on account of business support services cannot be treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under Article 12(5) of India Netherlands DTAA and hence addition towards the same unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares would not amount either to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
Undisputedly investment been made out of part of sale consideration. Therefore, simply because sale deed been executed subsequently, section 54F deduction cannot be denied
Paul Gerard Jenner Vs ITO (ITAT Dehradun) The appeal has been summarily dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) treating the appeal filed in manual Form as invalid and holding that the assessee was mandatorily required to file the appeal electronically. The assessee could not submit the appeal in electronic Form/online as it had to be verified […]
Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessee filed its return of income through e-mode on 30.09.2012 declaring NIL income. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, amounting to Rs.34,49,325/-. In respect of statutory notices, Ld.AR of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. […]
When donations forming corpus of assessee’s trust received with specific purpose are capital in nature. ITAT held that corpus specific voluntary donations are not taxable in case of unregistered trust
Decision of jurisdictional high court with jurisdiction over AO should be followed and applied by NFAC. Relief should not be refused to taxpayer merely because there was a conflicting decision of a non-jurisdictional high court.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalties under section 271(1)(b) and section 271F of the Income Tax Act are not leviable on reasonable cause demonstrated by the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as all the particulars duly furnished by the assessee relating to source of investment, mere rejection of the claim of the assessee cannot invite levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
