Jetkool Exports India Vs National E-Assessment Centre (ITAT Mumbai) It is an admitted fact that the assessee being a partnership firm was entitled to deduction in respect of the remuneration payable to the partners as per clause 7 of the Partnership Deed. This in turn depends on the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 which […]
AO is only entitled to reopen assessment, but he cannot review an assessment in the sense that there cannot be a rethinking or different opinion on the same material, which was the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings.
Mukkamala Srihari Rao Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) Whether the sale consideration received by a person from sale of capital asset if applied in the name of his wife or son for purchasing/constructing residential house whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s. 54F or 54 of the Act?. From going through the decision(s) relied on by […]
ITAT Hyderabad held that reasons given in the condonation application for the delay are not sufficient for condonation of such huge delay of 930 days. Accordingly, appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
ITAT Raipur held that matter needs to be restored in absence of necessary verification by AO in characterizing share application money as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and non-cooperation and evasive conduct of the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held that as per records i.e. the Govt. Gazette Notification and Office Order submitted, Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur (Raj) is a Govt. Organisation and therefore assessee being an employee of Government Organization is entitled for full exemption of earned leave encashment on retirement u/s 10(10AA) of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on account of mere change of opinion is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Rajkot held that denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act on the allegation of non-filing of Return of Income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified.
Akshata Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur) ITAT held that the Approval granted by the JCIT, Range Central, Raipur under section 153D on ‘presumption’ basis without thoroughly going through the seized material, assessment records etc. as perfunctory, without application of mind, mechanical in nature hence, invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. […]
It was held that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, assessee had to show that capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in relevant year and it did not matter either capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset.
