The ITAT Chandigarh has allowed the appeal of Sard Dogri Co-operative against the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance was made by the CPC Bangalore while processing the return of income under section 143(1) on the ground that the return was not filed within the due date.
Iqbal Singh HUF Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Non-compliance with order of CIT (Appeals) cannot be sole reason to allow an addition on taxpayer
ITAT Chandigarh held that mere non-furnishing of copy of registration u/s 12A cannot be held as a valid and justifiable reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act where such registration continues to exist and the assessee trust duly stand registered u/s 12A for the year under consideration.
ITAT Chandigarh held that loss incurred on account of embezzlement during the course of day to day carrying out of charitable activities by the trust is revenue loss and duly allowable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that receipts of the assessee trust from its activities of sale of plots, flats and commercial booths and also its income earned form non-construction fee, transfer fee, penal interest and compounding fee, etc., are held to be entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act.
The recent ITAT Chandigarh ruling in Gurdeep Singh Ubhi Vs DCIT asserts that additional business income without unexplained sources should be taxed at normal rates, challenging the application of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delve into the notable decision of ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Mahaluxmi Food Industries Vs ITO, concerning the right to set off losses against surrendered business income as per Section 115BBE(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled in favour of an assessee whose agricultural income was previously marked as income from undisclosed sources, setting a significant precedent.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition on account of failure to provide necessary explanation in respect of source of cash deposits in bank confirmed without considering explanation set aside with one more opportunity to assessee in the interest of substantial justice and fair play.
ITAT held that income of the assessee which is already taxed in one head cannot be taxed under any other head by the Revenue Department.
