ITAT Cases Monthly Round Up: May 2024

Bonafide Mistake Committed By Assessee While Applying For Registration In Form 10AB Instead Of Form 10A, Merits To Be Condoned: Hyderabad ITATCase Title: Mandava Foundation verses Income Tax OfficerOn finding that it is proper to condone the mistake committed by the assessee while applying for registration in Form 10AB instead of Form 10A of the Income Tax Act, the Hyderabad ITAT directed the CIT(E) to hear and dispose of the request of the assessee by allowing it to apply under Form 10A.Deduction U/s 43B Shall Be Allowed If Assessee Has Claimed Such Deduction On Payment Basis: Rajkot ITATCase Title: Maruti Enterprise verses ADITThe Rajkot ITAT held that the claim of the assessee cannot be denied as it was not reported in the tax audit report, especially in the circumstances where other evidence is available on record suggesting the deduction in pursuance to the provisions of section 43B on payment basis is available.Section 54F Does Not Envisage That Sale Consideration Obtained From Original Capital Asset Is Mandatorily Utilized For Meeting Cost Of New Asset: Delhi ITATCase Title: Phillip Koshy verses DCITWhile allowing deduction u/s 54 of the Income tax Act, the New Delhi ITAT explained that under the light of section 54, exemption of capital gain from being charged to income tax as income of the previous year is attracted when another residential house has been purchased within one year before or two years after the date of transfer or has been constructed within three years after the date of transfer of the residential house.No Adhoc Disallowance Is Permitted Without Rejecting Books Of Account: Mumbai ITATCase Title: ACIT verses Merchant Agri Global Private LimitedOn finding that the AO had audited and still not rejected the books of account, the Mumbai ITAT held that the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO was not justified and needed to be deleted.Pune ITAT Grants Additional Opportunity To 'Lady Of Hope Church' To Establish Genuineness Of Its Charitable ActivityCase Title: Our Lady of Hope Church verses CIT (Exemption)While allowing the appeal challenging the cancellation of provisional registration of the applicant trust u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, the Pune ITAT set aside the order of CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to specifically examine the genuineness of the charitable activities performed by the trust as per his satisfaction.Addition U/s 68 Should Be Restricted To Extent Of Gross Profit At Same Rate Of Genuine Purchases If Sales Are Not Disputed: Mumbai ITATCase Title: Murtuza Abdul Gaffar Khan verses National Faceless Appeal CentreWhile deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, the Mumbai ITAT held that in the absence of any dispute and discrepancy in the sales, the addition should be restricted to the extent of gross profit at the same rate of the genuine purchases.AO Can't Reopen Assessment Beyond Period Of Four Years When There Was Full Disclosure By Assessee: Mumbai ITATCase Title: Lalita Troy Caeiro verses ITOOn finding that the reopening of the assessment is beyond the time limit provided under the proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the Mumbai ITAT quashed the order of disallowance passed by the AO for disallowing the interest paid for acquisition of the property from computation of short-term capital gain.ITO Can Presume That Books Of A/C Found During Search U/s 132/ Survey U/s 133A Belongs To Person Upon Whom Said Action Is Initiated: Delhi ITATCase Title: Smt. Kusum Mittal verses DCITWhile rejecting the appeal challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 153A, the New Delhi ITATheld that section 292CC of the Income Tax Act empowers an officer to presume that the books of account or other document found during search u/s 132 or survey u/s 133A belongs to a person upon whom search or survey has been done.Assessment Made Purely Based On Assumption & Unverified Statement Of Third Party, Is Bad In Law: Mumbai ITATCase Title: Kundal Raghubir Bhandari verses ITO (Intl. Tax)Finding that the AO has completely relied on the statement of third party without giving opportunity to the assessee to prove its point of view, which is against natural justice, the Mumbai ITAT held that such assessment order to be bad in law which was made purely on the basis of assumption and unverified statement of the third party.Time Barred Notice Issued U/s 153C And Consequent Assessment Order Passed U/s 143(3) R/w/s 153C Is Void Ab Initio: Chennai ITATCase Title: M/s. KSJ Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Verses DCITThe Chennai ITAT held that since the notice issued by AO for subject assessment year falls beyond the stipulated six assessment years and four relevant assessment years, considering the satisfaction note, the notice issued by AO u/s 153C of Income tax Act for initiation of proceeding against assessee and consequent assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r/w/s 153C is barred by limitation, void ab initio and liable to be quashed.Correction In Form 35A Is No Basis To Treat Such Form As ...

ITAT Cases Monthly Round Up: May 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags