ITAT Rajkot held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 non-invocation of section 115BBE of the Act on the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors u/s. 68 of the Act is duly justifiable.
Read the analysis of ITAT decision in the case of Rama Mepa Odedara Vs ITO. The appellant appealed against addition of cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT considered the source of deposits and concluded that only the profit element should be taxable.
Requirement to deposit net consideration as per Section 54F(4) not attracted if assessee has purchased a new residential house within due date specified under Section 139(4)
ITAT Rajkot held that the capital contribution made by the partner of the firm cannot be subject to the addition in the hands of the partnership firm.
Since the quantum addition stands deleted by the ITAT in the above order, there remains no basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
ITAT Rajkot held that Partner’s/Director’s nationality will not suffice the company’s residency as the company is incorporated in UAE and is managed and controlled only in UAE. Thus, it is a tax resident of UAE and, therefore, treaty between India and UAE (DTAA) is applicable
ITAT Rajkot held that apparent and obvious mistakes in the return can be rectified by filing an application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, rejection of such application is unjustified.
ITAT Rajkot held that denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act on the allegation of non-filing of Return of Income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified.
ITAT Rajkot held that denying the exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act merely on the ground of belated filing of return by the assessee is not justifiable.
ITAT Rajkot held that interest under section 234A and 234B can be levied only up to the date of self-assessment tax paid and not for period beyond that date.
