It is the case of the assessee that it has not been provided with the opportunity of being heard before the Ld. AO/CPC, Bangalore while passing an order under Section 154/153(1) and additions were made due to inadvertent mistake of the tax auditor in both the employer and employee’s contributions. Actual due date of the salary should have been verified by the CPC/A.O.
In a recent ruling ITAT Delhi relied upon the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Subros Educational Society, (2018) 96 taxmann.com 652 (SC) in deciding that the set off of accumulated deficit is allowable.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT referred to the AO to examine the allowability of the claim u/s 11 of the Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of ACIT Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, (2022) 449 ITR 1 (SC).
Assessment completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144 for AY 2010-11 after making of addition of Rs. 36,092/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s. 24 and Rs. 23,43,705/- was also disallowed on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, Rs. 24,22,305/- on account of unaccounted receipts from Shiva Phrama Ltd. and Rs. 2,06,883/- on account of unaccounted receipts received from various companies.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act quashed since enquiry already conducted by AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the interest earned on the investment made with the Coopearitve Society which was carried out the banking business is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Rupesh Kantilal Savla Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a Income Tax search which had taken place prior to 1-4-2017
Assessee was a medical professional, filed his returns for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The appeal concerned an addition of over Rs. 179 crore made by AO under section 68 alleging unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s hands.
AO, based on the information, found that both suppliers were subject to proceedings and were found guilty of economic offenses punishable under the relevant CGST Act, 2017, and KGST Act, 2017.
Entire cash deposits made during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained credit and a reasonable addition of 20% of total cash deposit would be sufficient to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
