Tarun Jalali Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) Where construction of house was commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset, but it was completed within three years after the date of transfer, deduction under section 54F was admissible. Sub-section 4 of section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration of original asset towards provision of […]
Since assessee was an HUF and HUF itself could not become a working partner in the partnership firm, therefore, the due date of filing of the return applicable to assessee was 31st July of the relevant assessment year and belated return filed by assessee could not be revised.
AO was unjustified in making addition under section 41(1) on the reason that sundry creditors and other liabilities had ceased to exit as the opening balances of the liabilities were already admitted in the immediately preceding assessment years and the issue for revival was pending before BIFR because of which the creditors remain suspended but there had been no notice which could extinguish the existing right except to the extent that they became part of the sanctioned scheme.
In order to carry out the charitable activities, the Chairman of the society needs accommodation otherwise he would have to be put in rented accommodation and hence the same eligible for benefit of section 11 and 12.
Where there were no incriminating materials found with respect to the disallowance of expenditure made by AO, addition could not be made under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case the notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee which is not the mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. As per Section 153A, simple notice has to be given to the assessee. Thus, the contention of the Ld. […]
AO was not justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee without specifying the grounds in the penalty notice as the same could not be construed as a mere technical error
When TDS returns/statements had been filed by assessee for each quarter online and orders had been served upon assessee online for payment of the late fees, assessee was not justified in contending that it had not received any communication in respect of late fee imposed under section 234E neither any such communication came to the knowledge prior to the notice of outstanding demand issued by DCIT (TDS).
Sanraj Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, where both the assessment order and show cause notice failed to state the specific charge of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.20 […]
Where Any Incriminating Material Was Not Found During The Course Of Search, The Completed Assessments Could Not Be Opened: Varun Beverages Appeal
