Assessee did not file Form 10-IC before due date of filing return of income, i.e. 15/02/2021, which is mandatory condition for claiming option available under section 115BAA of Income Tax Act.
Umamaheswari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) As regards, the first objection of the AO on legal tender of Specified Bank Notes on or after 08.11.2016, I find that as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016, which came into effect from 31.12.2016 appointed date for this purpose means 31.12.2016. Further, as per Sec.5 […]
ACIT Vs BIP Developers Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) In the present case, the commercial expediency of the interest expenditure in question was duly established by the assessee and on appreciation of the relevant facts of the case of the assessee as well as keeping in view the decision of the Hon ’ble Supreme Court in […]
Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The assessee has claimed exemption under section 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. Such exemption has been denied to the assessee by observing that it has booked the flat with the builder in earlier year but ultimately took the possession in subsequent years. Therefore, he failed […]
ITAT Kolkata held that disallowance under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS untenable if payee has duly disclosed the receipt of the impugned payment in their return of income.
ITAT Chennai held that expenditure towards furniture maintenance which is incurred to make the lease premises workable and functional is revenue in nature.
ITAT Kolkata held that inadvertent mistake of claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act instead of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act is mistake apparent from record which is rectifiable under the provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that condonation of delay cannot be granted merely on the basis of sympathy or benevolence. Further, condonation of delay rejected alleging lack of diligence and inaction on the part of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment without valid reason or intangible material, merely on the basis of information from Electricity Authroity, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received under the Master Franchise Agreement cannot be treated either as royalty or Fee for Technical Services (FTS) or FIS and hence addition deleted.
