The assessee has received Rs. 2,54,24,007/- as interest on enhanced compensation from HUDA after the compulsory acquisition of the agriculture land of the assessee, on which TDS @10% was also deducted.
Even after the submission CIT (A) ignored the fact and upheld the addition amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/- not at Rs. 18,50,000/- which was result of rectification order passed by the AO.
In a recent ruling Delhi HC remanded the proceedings to the AO to consider the Assessee’s alternate claim for loss arising out of the HTM securities, as loss under the head ‘income from business and profession.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that since the assessee, being an agriculturist was not well versed with tax proceedings, was unable to file required documents against addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act before AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the source of cash is taxed, it cannot be further taxed as unexplained cash expenditure. Hence, addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act for cash payments deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that cancellation of provisional registration u/s. 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act as well as denial of final registration by CIT(E) without considering reply furnished by the assessee is violative of principles of natural justice.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
The Surat Bench of ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purpose which means that ITAT uphold the decision of CIT (A) but without any real impact on the case. It allowed TDS credit of the of Rs.4,50,000/- but in AY 2018-19 whereas it was claimed in AY 2016-17.
During the course of survey proceedings, the statement of one of the partners of the firm Mr. Zinu, was recorded, who had stated that he earns commission @ 5.5% from M/s Shapoorji Pallonji for supply of manpower.
PCIT was of the view that the export incentives and other income claimed by the assessee were not eligible for the exemption u/s. 10AA. PCIT was of the view that the assessee had claimed excess exemption under Section 10AA by a sum of Rs. 7,08,83,828.
