ITAT held that that section 80A(5) of the Act is applicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a case where no return of income is filed.
Lease charges paid for the use of the asset, without acquiring any ownership rights in the same, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act.
Assessee did not submitted necessary details before AO. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on this score without calling for the remand report. Tribunal set-aside the impugned order.
A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the provisions of section 145 (3) have not been invoked and the books of account of the assessee have not been rejected. This being so, admittedly, estimation of the assessee’s income is not permissible.
ITAT held that where notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee in accordance with law the reassessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In the case on hand as the Revenue could not prove the service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee in accordance with law the re-assessment made u/s 147 read with section 144 pursuant to such notice is void ab initio and bad in law.
Explore the ITAT Jaipur ruling in Shree Radheshyam Sharnam Vs CIT case. Delve into the impact of Covid-19 on document submission, appeal delays, and the final decision under section 80G(5)(vi).
Deduction reduced on account of interpretative process cannot per se be equated with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Explore Jayaprakasha Rai appeal against ITAT Bangalore order on TCS credit denial for Assessment Year 2018-19. Detailed analysis and implications discussed.
The assessee received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act from CPC Bengaluru and in the said intimation, certain adjustments were made as regards deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act, which according to the assessee have been incorrectly disallowed since assessee case is directly supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Natwarlal Chaudhry Charitable Trust 189 ITR 656 (Cal).
Since there was no valid transfer of land in question by assessee to the partnership firm of M/s. V Developers in the year under consideration giving rise to any capital gain and the transfer of the said land having validly taken place only in the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13 by assessee to M/s. V Developers, the capital gain arising from the said transfer was not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee for AY 2012-13 as duly declared by assessee in his return of income for AY 2012-13.
