ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay in the completion of construction of the house will not be a bar to the assessee for claiming the exemption provided u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction granted.
ITAT Surat held that each and every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. There has to be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealed income for levy of penalty.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed differs from the stamp value adopted by the officer, AO has to adopt the procedures contemplated u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee satisfactorily explained non-production of documents before lower authorities. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed is set aside and matter is remanded back to AO for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that there is no relation of disallowance u/s. 14A while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB. Thus, lower authorities were not correct in adding notional expenditure as computed u/s. 14A and increasing the book profit by that sum u/s. 115JB.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A of the Act was not a valid notice for the reason that the AO did not specify the satisfaction as to whether assessee had either ‘under reported the income or ‘misreported the income’.
ITAT Mumbai allows Transfer Pricing determination for Rallis India Ltd. using the ‘Other Method’ instead of CUP. Key points on ALP adjustments and deductions.
As noticed earlier, the provisions of sec. 147 of the Act makes it mandatory that the AO should be clear about the alleged escapement of income while recording reasons for reopening of assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that based on incriminating materials unearthed during the course of search, proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act needs to be initiated. Hence, initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 illegal and void ab initio.
AO on perusal of the details submitted by the assessee observed that the assessee could not prove the bad debts written off in its books of accounts are, in fact bad debts and irrecoverable with relevant evidences.
