The ITAT allowed appeal of the assesse wherein the LD. CIT(E) have rejected registration under 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961, by observing that various allegations made by the ld.CIT(E) while denying registration u/s. 12A of the I.T.Act requires verification and proper appreciation of facts by the ld. CIT(E). In addition, it was also observed that the matter requires a revisit to the file of the PCIT for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
ITAT Hyderabad held that AO has neither made any enquiry nor asked any questions to the assessee nor any information was called for. Therefore, the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment was undertaken by AO without application of mind on complete incorrect assumption of fact that no return of income was filed for the relevant Assessment year and hence said reopening of assessment is invalid.
ITAT Kolkata held that advance given in relation to business transaction for setting up hospital project which was abandoned, the said advance is irrecoverable and hence allowable as revenue expenditure.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Assessing Officer is required to pass the assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act and hence any order passed belatedly is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the mere allegation that assessee failed to justify the revenue nature of the expenditure is unsustainable as penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings.
ITAT Kolkata held that non-mentioning of the Document Identification Number (DIN) on the body of the order makes the order as invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
ITAT Mumbai held that any order passed by the TPO beyond a period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of section 92CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there was delay in filing statement in Form 24Q/ 26Q due to heavy loss incurred by assessee. However, the same was filed before issuance of show cause notice and late payment of TDS was done along with interest. Hence, it shows that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for late filing of TDS return and hence penalty not leviable.
ITAT Mumbai held that in terms of non- obstinate clause used in section 80IA(2A), deduction for telecommunication services is available in respect of profits of eligible business and is not restricted to profits derived from eligible business as mentioned in section 80IA(1) of the Act.
