Assessee had filed his income tax return on in which he declared a total income of Rs. 35,00,611, accepted under Section 143(1). A subsequent search and seizure operation on Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. brought assessee’s finances under scrutiny, as he was allegedly linked to the company.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condonation of delay of 10 years in filing of an appeal allowed since tax cannot be collected without authority of law and rejection of appeal on technical ground of delayed filing would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution.
During the impugned year, noting the fact that the assessee had deposited cash during demonetization period from 8th November 2016 to 30th December 2016 of Rs.4,12,67,000/-, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS).
ITAT Bangalore held that interest received from amount of government grant which is remitted back to either central or state government and the benefit of the same is not received by the assessee is not to be added in the income of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that GST/service tax which is collected by the assessee from its customers and paid to the Government do not form part of the receipts for computation of income as per section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
Analysis of ITAT Kolkata’s ruling in Usha Devi Modi vs ITO on Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, addressing capital gains on penny stocks and revisionary jurisdiction.
ITAT Kolkata rules in Shashi Bala Bajaj vs ITO that LTCG addition based on generalized reports, suspicion, and conjectures is not sustainable.
The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the business of providing aviation services by operating and maintaining aircrafts at various locations and having base at Bengaluru. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Rule 2BBB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was introduced only from AY 2015-16 and the same is not applicable for AY 2014-15. Thus denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned delay of nearly a decade in filing of an appeal since tax liability was fastened on the assessee without an authority of law and it is a well settled principle of law that unless authority of law, no tax can be collected.
