Where assessee-firm was able to point out the persons, from whom the firm received credits, AO was not justified in making addition to the income of assessee under section 68 on account of alleged unexplained credits.

CIT v. Sree Ganesh Trading Company

  Section 68   Direct Taxes
Where the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal was due to continuous ill-health of partner of assessee-firm, who was looking after the income-tax matters and accounts of the firm, the said delay in filing the appeal was condoned considering the same as a reasonable cause.

Deekay Gears v. Asstt. CIT

  Section 253(5)   Direct Taxes
When income which was the foundation on which AO based his belief of escapement of income was absent/disappeared then AO’s very usurpation of jurisdiction was on non-existing jurisdictional fact which rendered his usurpation of jurisdiction to reopen assessment legally untenable and so null and void in the eyes of law and therefore, addition/disallowance made on other issue was deleted.

Dipti Mehta v. ITO

  Section 147   Direct Taxes
It was undisputed that assessee had made payment of for purchase of flat to developer and there was a complaint filed by La Tropicana, Resident Welfare Association against the developer with National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Thus, delay in obtaining possession and getting purchase deed executed was on account of the developer and was by reason beyond the control of the assessee. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, exemption under section 54 could not be denied to assessee.

Bal Kishan Atal v. ACIT

  Section 54   Direct Taxes
Unaccounted money paid by assessee in cash towards purchase of land was rightly taxed by AO.

Vinay Gupta v. Asstt. CIT

  Section 69B   Direct Taxes
Where assessee invested sale consideration in construction of a residential house within three years from the date of transfer, therefore, assessee had to be given the benefit of deduction under section 54F even if no deposit was made in capital gains account scheme before due date prescribed under section 139(1).

Vijay Mahipal v. ITO

  Section 54F   Direct Taxes
As assessee had not earned any exempt income from investment during the year, there was no case for making disallowance under section 14A.

Dy. CIT v. Sarita Synthetics & Industries Ltd.

  Section 14A   Direct Taxes
Since Commissioner (Exemptions) was satisfied with the objects and activities of the assessee that it was meant for charitable purposes, therefore, assessee was also entitled for approval under section 80G(5) with the grant of registration under section 12AA.

Bharat Vikas Parishad Maharana Pratap Nyas v. CIT

  Section 80G read with Section 12AA   Direct Taxes
Powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of AO and this is amply clear from section 251(1)(a) and (b) Explanation to section 251(2), which requires CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from impugned order before him. Since CIT(A) was not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, the matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

Ashish Dham v. Dy. CIT

  Section 251(1)(a)   Direct Taxes
Holding period of the asset, i.e., flat had to be considered from the date of acquisition of asset in the light of agreement to sale, but not from the date of handing over of possession of the property.

ACIT v. Sandeep U Mehta

  Section 2(42A)   Direct Taxes
1 2