ITAT remands the case to CIT for re-examination due to insufficient notice for hearing in Bai Ruxmani case, allowing due opportunity for appeal.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition of all the cash deposits as unexplained income without giving credit for the withdrawal not justified. Accordingly, matter restored back to the file of AO for de novo consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad uphold the CIT(A) order restricting TDS credit in proportion of income returned to tax. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed. TDS credit was restricted to the tune of TDS pertaining to the income returned to tax in the impugned year and the balance credit was accordingly disallowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted as delay in BU was due to dispute of jurisdiction between AMC and AUDA. Accordingly, following judgement of Jurisdictional HC and SC disallowance rightly deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted disallowance of sales promotion expenditure since disallowance constitutes small percentage as compared to turnover of the assessee and also there is no allegation of expenditure incurred in cash.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned the delay of 611 days in filing of an appeal considering the fact that the assessee is a layperson with limited familiarity with the intricacies of the e-portal system.
Thus all the provisions relied upon by the Ld. AO would apply only in a case where an “asset” is “transferred” in the course of “amalgamation” by “transferor company” to the “transferee company” and would not apply when a particular “asset” is a “result” of amalgamation.
PCIT was of the view that mere process of compression of natural gas cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity for the purpose of claim of additional depreciation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowances on account of excess contribution to PF deleted since the same didn’t exceed 27% of the salary and wages in terms of rule 87 of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Since the Revenue has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A), we don’t find any reason to interfere with his order. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
