A proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee as during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act it was seen that in the ABN Amro Bank account of the assessee a cash amounting to Rs. 20 Lakh was deposited.
ITAT Kolkata held that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by AO not having valid jurisdiction is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, assessment proceeding based on an invalid notice is liable to be quashed.
Assessee is a credit cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members for A.Y. 2014 – 15, filed its return of income after claiming deduction u/s. 80 P (2) (a) of the income tax act.
ITAT Kolkata held that amendment to section 43CA of the Income Tax Act vide the Finance Act, 2020 via which tolerance band for deviation between actual sale price and stamp duty valuation increased from 5% to 10% has retrospective application.
ITAT Mumbai held that the deeming fiction of section 50C Income Tax Act cannot be extended while working out the written down value (WDV) for the purpose of claiming deprecation on the block of the asset. Thus, disallowance made is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned the delay of 611 days in filing of an appeal considering the fact that the assessee is a layperson with limited familiarity with the intricacies of the e-portal system.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of short term capital loss not justified since there is no evidence on record based on which genuineness of transactions can be doubted. Hence, held that conclusion drawn by AO is wholly irrational and unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for lower deduction of TDS not justified since the lower deduction in earlier months were due to bonafide reasons and the same was adjusted in later months.
Thus all the provisions relied upon by the Ld. AO would apply only in a case where an “asset” is “transferred” in the course of “amalgamation” by “transferor company” to the “transferee company” and would not apply when a particular “asset” is a “result” of amalgamation.
PCIT was of the view that mere process of compression of natural gas cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity for the purpose of claim of additional depreciation.
