Google LLC Vs JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Bangalore) The Tribunal has held that the where the delay in the disposal of pending appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the tribunal has power to extend the stay beyond a period of 365 days even after the amendment of the third proviso to section 254(2A) w.e.f 1st […]
Rakesh Janghu Vs Circle, 33(1) (ITAT Delhi) On perusal of the records, we observe that the Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the ground that the assessee has deposited employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI amounting to Rs.2,32,41,551/- after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act/ Rules in breach of Explanation […]
There was no ill-motive behind for not filing appeal in time and assessee had also filed affidavit, stating the reasons and requested Tribunal to condone the delay which occurred due to administrative lapse on part of his representative.
When an assessment framed by the ld. AO is unsustainable in the eyes of law, the said invalid and illegal order cannot be subject matter of section 263 proceedings.
Acceptance and repayment of cash for personal purpose between near relatives did not not attract sections 269SS and 269T and, therefore, no penalty could be levied under section 271D/271E.
Explore ITAT Delhi’s decision in Amar Chand Garg vs. ACIT. Disallowance of annual mixed-use charges for commercial use. Details of the case and verdict.
Held that the Revenue has failed to comply to the direction of the Bench in furnishing any report from the AO as to in what manner, the investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata and report of SEBI has any link with the transactions carried out by the assessee, we allow the claim of Long Term Capital Gain on account of sale of shares of M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. and consequently the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act.
Held that the carry forward of business loss cannot be denied to the assessee merely on the ground that the statutory audit/tax audit was not completed within the prescribed period.
DCIT Vs Dilip J Thakkar (ITAT Mumbai) Section 149(1)(c) provides that no notice for reassessment can be issued if “more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped […]
ITAT Held that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the Income Tax Act on fertilizer subsidy received by it. Accordingly, we hold that the fertilizer subsidy income received by the assessee is income derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction u/s 80 IB of the income tax act.
