ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act empowers AO to pass penalty order by enhancing or reducing penalty on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to orders passed by appellate authority or courts.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income of beneficiaries of trust cannot be treated as income in the hands of the trust. Accordingly, disallowance under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act not justified.
The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the denial of registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act vide the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad.
The return of the assessee was taken for scrutiny assessment. The assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land of Rs. 1,41,43,038/- and claimed exemption u/s. 54F of the Act reinvestment in a residential house.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained due to wide fluctuation in value of share within a period of less than 5 months and that too within same financial year without accurate explanation.
Even after the submission CIT (A) ignored the fact and upheld the addition amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/- not at Rs. 18,50,000/- which was result of rectification order passed by the AO.
In a recent ruling Delhi HC remanded the proceedings to the AO to consider the Assessee’s alternate claim for loss arising out of the HTM securities, as loss under the head ‘income from business and profession.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that since the assessee, being an agriculturist was not well versed with tax proceedings, was unable to file required documents against addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act before AO.
Since the reason for the delay seemed genuine, it was condoned. It was held that assessee had not given the explanation as to why assessee did not appear before AO and file the details of source of the deposits within the stipulated time.
PCIT was of the view that the export incentives and other income claimed by the assessee were not eligible for the exemption u/s. 10AA. PCIT was of the view that the assessee had claimed excess exemption under Section 10AA by a sum of Rs. 7,08,83,828.
