CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.1.42 crores and remaining addition of Rs.3.35 crores, which was closing balance of loans were deleted. Further aggrieved, the revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 36,48,000/- and credit entries of Rs. 21,93,269/-. AO observed that inspite of repeated reminders, assessee failed to submit the reply.
ITAT Hyderabad held that benefit of section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act granted even if Form 10ID filed prior to commencement of manufacturing activity, if assessee proves the commencement of manufacturing for the subsequent assessment year.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 11(1)(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act duly admissible to Rajkot Urban Development Authority (RUDA) since the activities were not commercial in nature.
ITAT Delhi held that delay of 35 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) ought to be condoned since assessee has explained the sufficient reason for said delay. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment order quashed since notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served after the date of limitation. Since issuance of notice is bad in law, consequent orders is liable to be quashed.
Held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit. Particularly in view of the excruciating fact that reduction of subsidy from written down value was accepted by the Assessing Officer and he did not tinker with the amount of depreciation claimed.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by AO disregarding the fact that the same was passed on non-existing entity.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from the sale of software licenses is business income and the same cannot be taxed in India in absence of Permanent Establishment and in terms of India-Austria DTAA.
ITAT Hyderabad held that entire cash deposits added towards unexplained money unjustified since benefit of telescoping of withdrawals against the subsequent deposits should be given. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
