Visakhapatnam ITAT ruled against depreciation claims for uninstalled machinery by ACIT vs Mithra Kyokuto, citing lack of operational evidence for A.Y. 2012-13.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax rate u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable only with effect from 1st April 2017 and not prior to the same. Hence, appeal allowed to that extent.
ITAT Delhi remanded the matter back to the file of AO (TDS) for proper verification of quantum of External Development Charges (EDC) for demand of tax under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Denial of registration under section 12AB to a trust engaged in fund-raising activities was not correct as one-time fund raising programme carried out by assessee-trust was not an organized activities in the nature of business akin to selling of lottery tickets.
CIT(A) without looking into the merits of the case and detailed submissions filed by assessee also without considering the CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thus for the casual attitude of the Revenue in dismissing the appeal twice was liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the assessee to meet the ends of justice.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT directed the CPC to consider the due date as extended by the CBDT for the purpose of claim of exemption under section 11 & 12 of the IT Act. Assessee, being a society, filed its ITR for AY 2018- 19 after due date on 29.10.2018 along with audit re-port. Due to which exemption u/s 11 & 12 was denied by CPC.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored the matter back to AO for fresh adjudication but imposed cost of Rs. 10,000 for lack of diligence during assessment and appellate proceedings on the part of the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that transfer of case of the assessee would not be permissible to another Assessing Officer without a decentralization order or transfer order under Section 127 of the Act is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdictional error.
It was claimed that the notice under Section 148 was time-barred, reasons recorded under Section 147 were vague, and proper show-cause notices were not issued, violating Section 144B.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that PCIT is wrong in concluding that return filed u/s 44AD did not envisage the maintenance of any Books of Accounts. Section 68 can be invoked only if there is any entry in the Books of Accounts.
