he issue raised by the AO in proceeding under section 154 of the Act is highly debatable and requires the issue to be reconsidered by the AO about applicability of provision of section 115JB of the Act which was not raised by the AO in the original assessment proceeding. Therefore AO has no power to […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the leading case, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
M/s Shree Dhanwantri Herbals Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Benefit of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act @ 100% was available to new units, only on the setting up of the unit and not on account of substantial expansion undertaken by it. It was further held that there can be only one initial assessment year for […]
The assessee being eligible had option to start claiming deduction from any of the assessment years within time frame of Ay 2004-2005 to AY 2019-2020. Assessee exercises the option in AY 2008-09. AO made the disallowance by holding that assessment year 2004-05 is the initial AY. ITAT issued order in favour of Assessee.
Just because the assessee has not filed its income tax returns in earlier years, it can not be said that the activities of the assessee are not genuine. It has been held that non-filing of return cannot be one of the reasons for denying registration under section 12A of the Act.
The initial assessment year has been defined and the expression or’ has been used in respect of new units by stating commences operation’ or complete substantial expansion’. Here the expression or’ is to be read as a mutually exclusive expression which refers to a particular situation by excluding the other situation.
Where no question was asked during statement recorded under section 132(4), in respect of manner of earning income surrendered, assessee could not be expected to substantiate same later on; penalty could not be levied under section 271AAA
As per section 12AA, the commissioner has to satisfy himself about the objectives of the Trust and genuineness of its activities and for such purpose he has the power to call for such documents or information from the assessee as he thinks necessary.
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s HMM Coaches Ltd. vs. ACIT that according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Arbitral Award is like a decree of the Court and is executable by the Courts. It is, therefore, like an order/judgement enforceable at law and as such, could not be construed as document or evidence.
ITAT Chandigarh held in Lakshmi Energy & Foods Products Ltd Vs The ACIT that if the assessee was following mercantile method of accounting and it had booked loss in the assessment year in which the same had been determined then the same should be allowed because the assessee
