Held that if assessee is not eligible for credit in the year under consideration then credit for the same should be allowed in the year in which tax has been deducted by the deductor.
The interest amount has been actually paid by the assessee through Overdraft/Cash Credit account and, therefore, set aside the disallowance made under Section 43B of the Act.
ITAT held that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(l)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty.
Additions made primarily on basis of oral evidence of third parties, without giving fair opportunity of hearing and right to cross-examine those parties to assessee not sustainable
Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty notice stating that, subsequently penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20.03.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 24.03.2017. The assessee was asked to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon you for concealment […]
Uma Strips Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT find that there is no live link presented by the AO between the material available with him i.e. the report of the investigation and to reason to belief that the assessee has tried to evade the assessment for the particular year in question. Simply […]
Late Shri Nemichand Gunavanthraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) We noted that the assessee has moved this petition under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and filed additional evidences i.e., confirmation letters from relatives, copies of Income-tax returns, copies of financial statements, copies of wealth tax returns of the relatives to prove the creditworthiness of the […]
Sneha Nerli Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) We are of the opinion that assessee has to prove with evidences that sufficient cash was available to deposit to her bank account. In the present case, assessee claimed that she has been working in Dubai and that the cash deposit in India were on account of amounts earned […]
Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the order of learned CIT(A) it is evident that it is assessee’s contention that the amount received is actually arrears of interest. Hence, the sum cannot be considered as cash credit. The learned CIT(A) despite noting these facts has mechanically confirmed Assessing Officer’s order without any […]
Intelsat Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. AO erred in not appreciating that appellant being a resident of USA is covered by the beneficial provisions of DTAA between India and USA and accordingly, could not be taxed under the provisions of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the issues involved in […]
