ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form No. 35A signed by the Authorized Representative is only an irregularity which is curable u/s. 292B of the Income Tax Act and not an illegality. Thus, order set aside with a direction to pass order on merits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that taxation must be based on income that has actually accrued or arisen. Thus, addition towards decentralized grants merely routed assessee and simply transferred to other government agencies as per GOG’s directions is unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards bogus purchases made without proper verification of facts but just on the basis of suspicion, surmises and unverified information unjustified and liable to be deleted.
Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has held that in case assessee has not claimed any deduction in respect of its liability for payment of luxury tax, no question of addition under section 43B will arise.
The assessee is an NRI. During the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.6,00,000/- each in his bank account. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO questioned the source of these cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses Yug Nirman Gayatri Parivar Trust’s appeal for 12A registration after withdrawal due to fresh application for registration under Section 12AB.
Arbuda Builders challenges addition for cash deposits during demonetization, arguing against assumptions of unexplained income. Details on the ITAT Ahmedabad ruling.
Assessee filed an appeal concerning the penalty of ₹20,29,394 levied under Section 271AAA for AY 2008-09. It had initially declared a total income of ₹23,62,74,550 in its Return of Income (ROI).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the entire proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated and completed by the PCIT within a period of only 12 days without pointing out reason for lack of enquiry unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back.
