The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], Chandigarh bench, has held that the appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal by pointing out the defects in its form without granting an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects.
Where assessee filed return within extended period of section 139(4) and delay was caused by reason beyond the control of assessee, liberal interpretation was to be given to procedural requirement of section 80AC and denial of deduction under section 80-IC was not, therefore, justified.
The only limitation prescribed by section 54 is that construction of new house ought to have been completed within a period of three years and said section does not prescribe any condition vis-a-vis the commencement of construction, therefore, assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54 even in respect of amount invested prior to the date of transfer of original asset.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
A bare reading of sections 54 and 54F of the Act nowhere states that the surplus remaining after claiming deduction under section 54/54F on account of construction of house property undertaken in a year, would not be allowed set off against long-term capital gain earned in the succeeding year.
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.
