Assessee hospital was not entitled for registration under section 12A as it was charging on the basis of commercial rates from the patients and it had failed to demonstrate that the charges / fee charged by it were on a reasonable markup on the cost.
The ITAT allowed appeal of the assesse wherein the LD. CIT(E) have rejected registration under 12A of the I.T. Act, 1961, by observing that various allegations made by the ld.CIT(E) while denying registration u/s. 12A of the I.T.Act requires verification and proper appreciation of facts by the ld. CIT(E). In addition, it was also observed that the matter requires a revisit to the file of the PCIT for deciding the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
ITAT Hyderabad held that AO has neither made any enquiry nor asked any questions to the assessee nor any information was called for. Therefore, the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deciding any ground based on any additional evidence before CIT(A), without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, is untenable in law. CIT(A) needs to mandatorily given an opportunity to AO to examine the additional evidence.
ITAT Hyderabad held that merely because the assessee took the land on lease for conducting their research operations to produce the foundation seeds of the hybrid varieties, such a lease cannot ipso facto make the operations of the assessee as contract farming.
ITAT held that As reasons given by assessee is not convincing and therefore the delay of 2886 days in filing the above appeal cannot be condoned.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained investment sustained as assessee couldnt explain the source of investment. Onus is on the assessee to explain the source of investment.
Watermarke Residency Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the present case, the TPO had benchmarked the transaction after treating the FCCDs as debt. This finding of TPO was based on Terms of issuance of FCCD and balance-sheets/ financials of the assessee as well as of it’s A.E, where both had mentioned FCCD as debt. We […]
ITAT Hyderabad held that other than being an agriculturist, the assessee was license holder of retail sale of IMFL. However, the said fact was not verified by CIT(A). Accordingly, held that case has not been properly adjudicated by CIT(A).
ITAT Hyderabad held that for comparability of company with that of the assessee, in case of international transactions, the criteria of functionally comparability needs to be considered.
