Since assessee did not file the Audit Report in Form No.56F as required under the law, AO had rightly disallowed deduction claimed u/s.10AA.
Where income was offered on presumptive basis under section 44AD, there was no need to maintain books of accounts therefore addition made against the vegetable vendor was deleted for failure to substantiate the unexplained cash deposit.
ITAT Varanasi held that principles of natural justice demand that both the parties, i.e. assessee as well as AO, shall be given opportunity of being heard, before being condemned and any prejudice is caused. Impugned order not satisfying the same is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that denial of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act on the basis of vague and ambiguous reasons is unjustified. It is settled law that when assessee is entitled for deduction the same should not be disallowed merely because of any bona fide mistake or error.
ITAT Amritsar held that section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not empowered to allow addition of sundry debtors/ advance to growers. Accordingly, addition of the same deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that when the investment in house property is done jointly, claim under section 54 of the Income Tax Act is restricted to the 50%.
ITAT Delhi held that capital gain cannot be taxed in the hands of the person who sold the property as attorney of the owner. The same is taxable only in the hands of the owner of the property.
ITAT Hyderabad held that mentioning of firm in 2(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 2018 excludes it from 2(3)(a). Accordingly, in case of firm, surcharge is leviable only when its total income exceeds INR 1 crore and not otherwise.
Indofil Industries Limited Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source in respect of commission expenses payable to the whole time directors under section 192 of the Income Tax Act only, as the same shall form part of their salary payment only. Facts- The assessee company is […]
Unexplained bank deposits cannot be considered under Section 68 and it falls under Section 69A. However, mentioning a wrong section by AO is not fatal.
