Tribunal held that in order to impart justice to the employees/assesses the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the issue of Section 10(10)(C), the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the amount of Rs.5 lacs
Assessing Officer has wrongly stated that Shri Prithvi Singh, father of the assessee has stated in his statement that he had no agricultural land in his name. Since, as per the Statement recorded by AO it is been observed that that Shri Prithvi Singh (father of the assessee) has stated that he has
D.R for the revenue argues that no appeal lies against Appeal Effect Order passed by Assessing officer. The appellant may apply to the Assessing Officer for rectification U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but no appeal be filed against appeal effect order passed by AO.
The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.
Exchange rate fluctuation arises out of and is directly related to the sale transaction involving the export of goods of the industrial undertaking and, therefore, difference on account of exchange rate fluctuation is entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act. This ground of appeal is allowed.
In the case of Pooja Industries vs. ITO, ITAT Chandigarh held that mere denial of deduction u/s 80IC, which the assessee has claimed on roller flour mills with a bonafide belief, would not lead to panel consequences.
In the case of Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assesse has failed to provide the loan confirmation of the loan received from Shri Kathirase Kumar and was also unable to provide an explanation as to why such confirmation could not be filed.
The assessee was not satisfied as the assessing officer did not allow the depreciation which was subsequently claimed during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee in Cross Objection has challenged the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in upholding the disallowance of claim of Rs.2, 57, 90,420/- made by the trust in respect of excess utilization made in the earlier years.
In this case merely on the basis of statement recorded during the search where Smt. Meena Garg i.e the assessee has said that she was not running any business concern in the name of M/s Punjab Timber Trading Co (Proprietorship Concern of the Assessee) Assessing officer has added the Income of the Assessee to Income of Punjab Plywood Industries in which male members of the family were partners.
Smt. Rajneet Sandhu vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh): In this case the construction of the house was not completed within the prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed.
