ITAT Mumbai held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act in contravention of the provisions of section 151, as the sanction of the concerned Specified Authority was not obtained, is void abinitio and bad in law.
ITAT Cochin held that disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules in a mechanical manner without recording proper satisfaction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, addition set aside.
ITAT Cochin held that denial of registration u/s. 80G to the existing trust alleging belated filing of application applying sub clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) unjustified as the same apply to newly formed trust only.
In view of this, tax officer did not allow the offset of LTCL against LTCG and the carry forward. CIT (A) overturned tax officer’s decision, stating that the transactions were part of legitimate tax planning and that the method of sale was a commercial consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that interest earned out of savings bank account maintained in a co-operative bank cannot be treated as income or dividend from investment and accordingly deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act not eligible.
After taking cognisance of the reply of the assessee, PCIT held that AO has not applied his mind in respect of the amended provisions of Section 14A and, therefore, the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and is erroneous.
ITAT Chandigarh held that passing of an ex-parte order by CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case is unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The assessee is in the wholesale distribution of sale of premium motorcycles manufactured by Ducati, Thailand to the dealers in India and in distribution of spare parts, accessories, clothing and merchandise imported from its Ducati group entities to the dealers in India.
Assessee explained that borrowed funds were used for investments in partnership firms, generating interest income exceeding expenses. AO accepted the claim and approved the returned income as assessed income.
ITAT Mumbai held that hardship compensation is not a revenue receipt but constitute a capital receipt. Accordingly, AO directed to delete addition made towards the same.
