ITAT Raipur held that application for registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act rightly rejected since assessee, without any justifiable reason, failed to provide requisite details/ documents specifically called by CIT(E).
ITAT Raipur held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be struck down for the failure on the part of the A.O. to put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed.
In Peter Vaz vs CIT, Bombay HC rules ITAT erred in barring Sec 153C challenge & refusing delay condonation. Cites Rule 27, Balakrishnan (SC). Matter remanded.
Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2018, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs.20,98,730/-.
ITAT Raipur held that vacating addition/ disallowances by CIT(A) based on additional documentary evidences filed before him without confronting AO is against the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Thus, matter restored back to AO.
ITAT Raipur rules that rejection of 80G registration for Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Relief Trust without a show-cause notice violates natural justice. Case remanded for review.
ITAT Raipur held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act is allowable since pre-condition regarding usage of land for agricultural purposes in two years immediately preceding date of transfer is satisfied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Raipur held that assessment framed by AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is invalid and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
ITAT Raipur held that entire addition of transaction in the hands of assessee under section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment not tenable since the same needs to be allocated between joint beneficial owners. Thus, matter restore back to file of AO.
A similar claim for deduction as was raised by assessee-firm in the preceding year had been allowed by the department, but also the fact that the GP/NP rates of assessee firm were progressive as in comparison to the preceding year.
