PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order and compute correct taxable income by giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Being aggrieved against the revision order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified as view taken by PCIT was second view and the same is not permissible u/s. 263.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 725 days in filing of an appeal since assessee is an agriculturist and is not aware of the intricacies of the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.
Assessee had filed Form No.10AB under section 80G(5). Although, assessee-trust was registered on 01.09.2013, it received provisional approval on 16.09.2022 under first proviso to section 80F (5) (iv), valid until AY 2025-26.
ITAT Ahmedabad sets aside an order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act after a notice was sent to the wrong address. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act for delayed payment of employees’ contributions to PF and ESIC based on mis-reporting by the auditor in the audit report is unjustified. Accordingly, addition restriction.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there is no basis for linking assessee’s alleged violation of RBI notification dated 8th November 2016 to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, when the nature and source is explained.
Section 263 cannot be invoked without substantial grounds, particularly when the AO has followed due process during the assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad grants stay of tax recovery in Siddhi Parag Patel vs ITO case. The dispute centers on unexplained land investments and tax demand revisions.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that Section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers, and clarifies the retrospective effect of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on property transactions.
