Akshata Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur) ITAT held that the Approval granted by the JCIT, Range Central, Raipur under section 153D on ‘presumption’ basis without thoroughly going through the seized material, assessment records etc. as perfunctory, without application of mind, mechanical in nature hence, invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. […]
ITAT Raipur held that there is no bar on an individual to join a partnership firm in his representative capacity of a firm being represented by him. In short, partnership firm can be formed by partners represented by their respective firms.
ITAT Raipur held that delay of 1563 days cannot be simply condoned on the basis of the unsubstantiated claim of the assessee. As assessee failed to come forth with any good and sufficient reason that would justify condonation of the substantial delay, appeals dismissed as barred by limitation.
ITAT Raipur held that charging of late fees of delay in filing of TDS statement under section 234E of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01.06.2015. Charging the same for period prior to 01.06.2015 is untenable in law.
ITAT Raipur held that warehousing charges received by the assessee is taxable under the head Income from Business and not under the head Income from house property.
ITAT Raipur held that service of tabulation, checking and preparation of marksheets and other computer assisted work doesn’t require any specific professional skill or expertise. Therefore, provisions of section 194J of the Income Tax Act are not attracted.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit unsustainable as AO has not rejected the books of accounts Accordingly it can be concluded that by accepting the books of accounts AO has also accepted the cash deposits to have been sourced out of duly disclosed source.
Jila ALP Sankhyak Bachat Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) Deductions otherwise disallowable under the Act but could not be disallowed in 143(1) – Eg 80P deduction AY 18-19 to AY 20-21 Assessee -Credit Co-operative Society, claiming deduction u/s.80P filed its ROI A.Y.2018-19 beyond the due date u/s 139(1). CPC in its Intimation […]
Where assessee did not raised claim for deduction under section 54B while filing the returns of income filed u/s 139(1) and u/s 148 but in appellate proceedings raised the same then such claim was allowable.
A.O while working out disallowance under section 40A(2)(b), had though observed that the payment of salary to the aforementioned two related parties in question was found to be excessive, but had fundamentally erred by not opining as to what as per him was the fair market value of the service which were being rendered by the aforementioned related persons, considering which the payments made to them by the assessee were to held as excessive.
