The Registry has put a note that the applications are time barred by five days. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the settled legal position of law, the applications cannot be treated as time barred. He in this respect has invited our attention to the relevant provisions of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), which read as under:-
Registration application u/s 12AA cannot be rejected merely on account of extraordinary powers with the managing trustee to appoint or remove other trustees and also to nominate their successor.
DCIT Vs M/s DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) In this case since there was no reason at all for reopening the case on the issue of treatment of royalty expenses ,since the same had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, before the recording of reasons for reopening the present case. […]
CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting approval sought by assessee under section 80G(5) on the allegation that assessee had sufficient disposable fund because sufficiency of funds available with an institution seeking the approval is not mentioned as condition under section 80G, which needs to be looked into before granting approval.
Various courts have held that if assessee invests the amount in purchase / construction of building within the stipulated period and the construction is in progress, then the benefits of exemptions under section 54 / 54F, cannot be denied to the assessee.
Prabhjit Singh Sidhu Vs. Asst. DIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Chandigarh) The facts before us also demonstrate that the disclosure in the return of income filed under section 148 of the Act was voluntary and before detection of the same by the Revenue. The payment of taxes on the said income two months prior to issue […]
This is an application moved by the department for vacation of ad interim stay orders dated 15.2.2017 and 28.4.2017. It has been pleaded in the application that in this case the then concerned Assessing Officer had passed a very well-reasoned order while disallowing the claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act.
The issue in hand pertains to addition made on account of deemed dividend as per provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Being a deeming provision, bringing to tax sums which are not actually in the nature of income but are only deemed to be so, it is to be strictly interpreted. Section 2(22)(e) of […]
Friends Alloys Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) From perusal of the order of the AO, it was found that the AO had not disputed that the assessee had carried out substantial expansion as provided under clause (b) of sub-section (2) read with clause (ix) of sub-section (7) of section 80-IC. Hence, the impugned order of the […]
ACIT Vs. Sh. Mohinder Singh (ITAT Chandigarh) Nature of receipt of income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller The nature of receipt of the income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller would not fall under the head ‘Capital Gains’ but ‘income from other […]
