In the Case of ITO-TDS vs. BSNL, the Hyderabad Tribunal observed that the relationship between the BSNL and the franchisee was recognised by the CBDT by inserting third proviso to S.194H. The assessee being public sector undertaking stands on a different footing and the view taken by Delhi High Court
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Amar Enterprise vs. ITO that in the present case, the AO has demonstrated that the assessee has continued business transactions with the concerned party. It is also not disputed that the assessee has received payments from the concerned party.
ITAT held in Manikanta Concerns Vs DCIT that if the assesse had claimed deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of purchase then it did not mean that assesse could not claim deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of sale.
In deciding the exemption u/s 54F in the case of Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao vs. DCIT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that non-compliance to condition of depositing sale proceeds in capital gain account scheme as required u/s 54 will not be so fatal to debar the assessee from getting benefit of section 54F.
ITAT Hyderabad held in Shri M.S Lakshmana Rao Vs DCIT that if the assesse had not deposited the capital gain amount under the capital gain account scheme in bank then the assesse should not be barred of the exemption of sec 54
In the case of Manikanta Concerns vs. DCIT, ITAT Hyderabad held that the shortage at the time of purchase and the shortage at the time of sale are two different issues and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that once the assessee has claimed shortage at the time of purchase
In the case of Pooja Industries vs. ITO, ITAT Chandigarh held that mere denial of deduction u/s 80IC, which the assessee has claimed on roller flour mills with a bonafide belief, would not lead to panel consequences.
In the case of Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assesse has failed to provide the loan confirmation of the loan received from Shri Kathirase Kumar and was also unable to provide an explanation as to why such confirmation could not be filed.
The issue in dispute raised in additional ground relating to non issue of the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is decided in favour of the assessee and we hold that the impugned assessment order dated 31.12.2009 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act by the AO as invalid.
Issue- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.10,83,555/- which was made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act as the service tax payable in the balance sheet was not deposited before due date of filing of return.
