Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (5) TMI 560 - ITAT MADRAS-CCondonation of delay - There is an acknowledgment also by way of seal of M/s Mustafa Gold Mart, Chennai-17, but the learned counsel of the assessee has sought to raise a doubt that the receiver is a person other than the assessee - In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned and the same is condoned as such In this case the assessee was granted deduction under s. 80HHC amounting to28,98,489 - Assessee being a non-resident was not eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC - The learned counsel of the assessee, argued that in the preceding two years assessee has been granted deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act - A reading of the case nowhere reflects that AO has applied his mind for the deduction under s. 80HHC in the context of assessee being a non-resident with reference to s. 90(2) of the IT Act along with the DTAA between India and Singapore – Hence, the contention of the learned counsel of the assessee that two views were possible on this issue and one view has been adopted by the AO is not sustainable. The AO's order does not reflect proper application of mind. Hence, it cannot be said that he was taking one of the possible views. - Appeal is dismissed - Order of CIT u/s 263 sustained.
|