KISHORE BHAGWANDAS RAMNANI,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3460/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 March 2024AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the initial filing of Form 35A was within the time limit, and subsequent corrections made by the assessee to cure defects should not be treated as a fresh filing beyond time. The Tribunal also found that the expenses were actually incurred as per the sale agreement and supported by bank statements.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed stamp duty, registration charges, and society transfer fees as expenses related to the sale of an immovable property. The Assessing Officer disallowed these claims for lack of supporting documents. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dismissed the assessee's objections on technical grounds regarding the filing of Form 35A.

What were the issues?

Whether the DRP erred in dismissing the assessee's objections on technical grounds regarding the filing of Form 35A, and whether the stamp duty, registration charges, and society transfer fees are allowable as expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 54EC,Section 163(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,

Hearing: 08.02.2024Pronounced: 14.03.2024

Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(DRP-1), Mumbai, dated 28.06.2023 for A.Y. 2020-

21.

The assessee has raised the following grounds before us:

“1. The Dispute Resolution Panel erred in not entertaining the objections filed by the Appellant in Form No. 35A.

2.

The Dispute Resolution Panel failed to appreciate that Form No. 35A filed by the Appellant (and signed by CA. Ms. Priyanka Jain) on 17. 10.2022 was in accordance with the law, and therefore, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in issuing the notice dated 06.04.2023 to the Appellant p

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →