A rectification, on the other hand, can be filed only after assessee receives an intimation u/s 143(1) or assessment order is passed and intimated to the assessee. So rectification application is more appropriate a remedy when assessment is complete and assessee claims on the basis of the assessment record available with the Ld. AO, that there is a mistake apparent in the order arising from the assessment record and same be rectified.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere delay in filing Form No. 67 as per the provisions of Rule 128(9) will not preclude the assesses from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India.
CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) by means of disallowance made in these cases for late deposit of employees’ share to the relevant funds beyond the date prescribed under the respective Acts.
R. Yuvaraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the source of the additional amount of ₹.52 lakhs found deposited in his savings bank account with Andhra Bank, Medavakkam. Since the assessee has not furnished any evidence for having received money from the purchaser Shri Parthasarathy, […]
ITAT Chennai held that assessee already admitted the fact of not disclosing four properties in the books of accounts and thereafter couldn’t explain the source of the purchase of four properties. Claiming that the same is gift from her husband is just an afterthought. Accordingly, additions sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once similar Long Term Capital Gain offered and exemption claimed by the co-owner is already accepted by the revenue, another co-owner (assessee) entitled for similar relief.
ITAT Delhi held that the deemed valuation of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as the said section is applicable in the case of seller of the property only while the appellant is a buyer.
ITAT Pune denied exemption of capital gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by applying principle of fraud as the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were construed with the intention to bring undisclosed income into books of accounts.
ITAT Bangalore held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI should be remitted before the due date as per explanation to section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act for it to be allowable under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that irrevocable possession and irrevocable power of attorney to transfer/ sell to the developer makes it clear that absolute possession of land is given to the developer and the amounts to transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act.
