(i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
Sunil Mathur Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration relates to source of cash deposits during the year in the two bank accounts maintained by the assessee amounting to Rs 13.5 lacs. In this regard, firstly, it is noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold a property and consideration thereof […]
Madhu Solanki Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, First of all, the outstanding balances related to the purchases made during the year under consideration and not brought forward balances. The AO did not get reply from both the trade creditors and hence he proceeded to assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases […]
United Waterproofing Corporation Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We note that Ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the addition on account of bogus purchases to 100% of the bogus purchases as against 12.5% applied by the AO. The only reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and […]
Considering the serious financial constraints of the assessee due to which it had failed to discharge its admitted self-assessment tax liability at the time of filing its return of income, and for a period thereafter, no penalty under Sec. 221(1) r.w.s 140A(3) could have even otherwise be imposed on it.
Statement under section 132(4) alone cannot be considered as incriminating material unless any corroborating incriminating material is found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee.
Explore the ITAT Bangalore case of Anand Sweets vs DCIT. Learn about the disallowance of employees’ contribution, legal arguments, and the victory for the assessee.
Dr. Chandrashekar Foundation Vs CIT (ITAT Bangalore) With regard to issue relating to repayment of loan, we modify the direction of the CIT (Exemptions) and direct the A.O. to examine this claim afresh i.e. if the cost of assets acquired out of loan funds have already been allowed as application of income, then the repayment […]
Since AO had taken recourse to the provisions of section 142(2A) only with a view to extend the period of limitation by virtue of clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 153(9) for completion of assessment, without the conditions being satisfied in section 142(2A), therefore, the assessment framed by AO under section 143(3) was barred by limitation and invalid.
Addition on account of investment made from undisclosed sources was deleted as as all transactions were made through banking channels and AO had made the addition in question on assumption and presumption basis.
