ITAT Hyderabad sets aside CIT(A) order, clarifying that Section 249(4) cannot apply when no advance tax liability exists. Appeal to be reviewed on merits.
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 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.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condonation of delay of 10 years in filing of an appeal allowed since tax cannot be collected without authority of law and rejection of appeal on technical ground of delayed filing would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution.
ITAT Hyderabad condoned delay of nearly a decade in filing of an appeal since tax liability was fastened on the assessee without an authority of law and it is a well settled principle of law that unless authority of law, no tax can be collected.
Hyderabad ITAT rules that taxpayers cannot make fresh deduction claims under Section 80IA in response to a notice issued under Section 153A after a search.
During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that on verification of the return of income for the A.Y 2015-16, it was seen that the opening stock was shown at Rs.17,98,60,568/-, whereas the closing stock as per the return filed for the A.Y 2014-15 was nil.
ITAT Hyderabad rules that delayed filing of Form 10/10B is not fatal to claiming Section 11 exemption, as long as form is available before processing under Section 143(1). Appeal allowed.
When assessee had both trade receivables and trade payables, it would be unreasonable to calculate interest only on trade receivables for the purpose of determining the ALP of the transaction. AO/ TPO was directed to consider both trade payables and trade receivables for the purpose of notional interest to be charged for determining the ALP value of the transaction.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the Tribunal has no power to recall/review its own orders in terms of scope and power of Tribunal for rectification of order u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
