ITAT Pune held that order u/s 119 dated 27.09.2019 extending due date to 31.10.2019 in respect of cases covered under Explanation 2(a) to section 139(1) applies to HUF too. Accordingly, as return by HUF filed within extended time limit, deduction u/s 80IA(7) of Income Tax Act allowable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that there is delay of 3047 days in filing of an appeal and reasons stated for condonation are not proper and casual in nature and accordingly doesn’t come under reasonable cause. Hence, appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
ITAT Jaipur held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non-maintenance of books of account u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act. However, in such circumstances imposing penalty u/s. 271B for not getting books of accounts audited is not justifiable.
ITAT Rajkot held that denying the exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act merely on the ground of belated filing of return by the assessee is not justifiable.
Aggreko Energy Rental India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT Pune held that appellate authority has power to entertain any new claim for the first time though not made before the Assessing Officer as the intention of the revenue would be to tax real income. Accordingly, revised claim of depreciation on goodwill made otherwise […]
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions contained in section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in case of the trust created for the benefit of the members / relatives of the settler who have been identified as beneficiaries.
ITAT Delhi held that by mere putting a seal as approving statement is not sufficient for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. It proves that approving authority has granted the approval in mechanical manner without application of mind and hence initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that the provisions of a DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) supersedes the provisions of the income tax Act in case their application is more beneficial.
ITAT Hyderabad restore the issue to file of CIT(A)-NFAC as non-appearance before CIT(A)-NFAC due to unavoidable circumstance. Further, due to continuous non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by CIT(A)-NFAC, cost of INR 10,000 imposed to be paid to PM’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Chennai held that as cash deposited by assessee received from petty shop owners on account of sale of its product during demonetization period was not examined by AO during assessment. Accordingly, PCIT rightly passed revision order u/s 263 directing AO to carry out necessary verification.
