Length of delay is not a material to condone the delay and rather the cause of delay is to be considered for condonation of the delay.
Bhalchandra Educational Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Lucknow) CBDT vide Circular No. 7/2018 dated 20/12/2018 has issued directions for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act in filing of Form 10 and Form 9A for assessment year 2016-17. The analysis of directions of CBDT vide this circular reveals that since assessment year 2016-17 was the […]
ITAT held that loss from trading in commodity derivatives is not a speculative loss and rightly been set off by the assessee against regular business profits from medical derivatives business.
Ishwar Dewllings Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Lucknow) Facts- The AO vide notice u/s 154 dated 02/05/2018 proposed rectification of the order passed u/s 143(3) by including profit on sale of agricultural land in the computation of book profits u/s 115JB. Thereafter, AO dropped the proceedings initiated u/s 154 vide order dated 14/06/2018. However, the […]
Desh Bharti Public School Samiti Vs AO/DCIT (ITAT Lucknow) We find that it is undisputed fact that assessee got registration u/s.12A of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.2013 vide order dated 2.9.2014, a copy of such registration certificate is placed in P.B. pg.24. It is also an undisputed fact that assessee in the earlier years has been […]
It is amply clear that the additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act can be made provided the transaction takes place during the previous year / financial year. Further, for making addition under section 68 of the Act, the assessee must fail to offer explanation and for making addition under section 69C of the Act, the source of the expenditure must remain unproved. In the present case, the assessee had duly explained the sources of the credit and the expenditure, respectively.
It is a settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
Achal Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Lucknow) Documents clearly demonstrates that assessee had purchased shares through Brokers for which the payment was made through banking channels. The assessee had sold shares through authorized stock broker and payment was received through baking channels after deduction of STT. On Page 16 which is a copy of Bank account […]
Where AO made addition under section 68 based on third party statement recorded by investigation wing, however, without affording opportunity of cross-examination to assessee, it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, addition was deleted.
ITO Vs M/s Arti Securities & Services Ltd. (ITAT Lucknow) Issue of scrutiny notice by non jurisdictional officer makes entire assessment invalid as per CBDT instruction no 1 of 2011 holds ITAT Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the second ground taken by the assessee is a jurisdictional issue therefore, he […]
