The CIT(A) is directed to first address the claim of the assessee namely that the online platform itself was not permitting the assessee to register as a legal heir in order to e-file the appeal, thus the assessee cannot be penalized for non compliances which are a result of limitations of the platform provided.
In both the appeals, the controversy relates to the nature and treatment of amounts received by the assesses from warehousing activity. As per the assesses the receipts from the warehousing activities are liable to be treated as business income whereas as per the Assessing Officer the same are liable to be treated as income from house property.
Conclusion: Notional interest on delay in realization of trade debt could not be charged from AE as there was uniformity in the act of the assessee in not charging interest from both AE and Non-AE debtors for delayed realization of export proceeds.
Where an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity through the advancement of an object of general public utility, it cannot but be regarded as an institution established for charitable purposes and proviso to section 2(15) could not be applied so as to deny exemption under section 11.
G.D. Agrawal, Vice-President – This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun dated 21st February, 2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
Smt. Vidhya Poonia Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) AO at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 148 has to form the belief on the basis of the material available which is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that prima facie income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, filing of return with wrong jurisdiction could […]
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 04.5.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-
In DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. Kuantum Papers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) decided on 1.09.2017, Revenue contended that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the depreciation on paper brands, which is a non-depreciable asset because its life is not limited.
Applicant along with their staff were extremely pre-occupied with the GST work of transition and registration of the dealers. Since, it was a new enactment and there were enormous complexities and unclearity, apart from the technological problems, continuously issued circulars and instructions etc., the said tax consultant could not file adjournment application
The remuneration to the members of the HUF were paid for the services rendered in the business which is allowable U/s. 37(1) and invoking the provisions of Section 184 and Section 40(b) does not arise on the facts of the case at all.
