The question sought to be raised in this appeal relates to the deduction under section 80O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short). The Tribunal has considered this question taking into account the calculations made by the Assessing Officer
As per record, we find that there was no notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act which is very much essential for reassessment and it is a failure on the part of the AO for not complying with the procedure laid down in section 143(2) of the I.T. Act.
In this case Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 (Entry 16) in so far as it provides for an exemption in respect of services provided by a performing artist in folk or classical art forms of music
Direct Stay Application filed before the Tribunal is maintainable and it is not the requirement of the law that assessee should necessarily approach the CIT before approaching the Tribunal for grant of stay.
Finding of the AO that in the absence of audit report, the enhanced claim is not maintainable over looks this factual position. It is undisputed that audit report for the enhanced claim had been furnished during the impugned 153A assessment proceedings along with Profit and Loss account and Balance sheet duly certified by the Accountant.
Assessee had declared an income by filing its return. The said return was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the basis of AIR. Assessment u/s 144 was made, resulting in an addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- as the assessee was found to have failed to explain the source of investment.
Assesee claimed deduction of Rs. 1.33 crores under Section 10A of the Act. On being called upon to explain about the eligibility of deduction, the assessee stated that it was entitled to deduction in view of fulfillment of all the requisite conditions as prescribed under Section 10A.
Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 458 (Mad)- In the present case, the appeal has been filed after a delay of 558 days. From the contents of the affidavit and submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has not explained the delay for such a long
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual derives income from manufacture of wire & wire ropes. The return was filed declaring total income at ` 4,07,734/-. However, the assessment was completed at an income of ` 5,08,730/- vide order dated 25.06.2007 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
It is settled principle of law apparent is real onus is on the person who alleges that apparent is not real. Once the assessee has submitted the evidence by way of bank account of JPC supporting his contention that the assessee has taken loan for the payment of labour payment incurred by it.
