The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
Read the summary of Bhola Yadav Vs. Commissioner of Customs, where the Delhi High Court distinguished the case of a suspended sepoy from established financial hardship precedents to waive the statutory pre-deposit for filing his appeal against a customs penalty.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows appeal in Somnath Bandopadhaya v. ITO, deleting ₹2.27 crore addition under Section 69A after verifying explained bank deposits.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a Tribunal’s observation to assess under S. 68 is non-binding, granting the assessee an “open remit” to challenge the cash credit addition.
ITAT Visakhapatnam, in case of Subbarao Jaladi v. ITO, set aside an addition of ₹6,37,16,100/- made under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding unexplained bank cash deposits.
The Karnataka High Court rejected a Revenue appeal concerning the taxability of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-USA DTAA due to the tax effect being below the ₹2 Crore threshold set by the CBDT’s latest circular.
Ahmedabad ITAT set aside an ex-parte order confirming ₹1.63 Cr tax additions against a real estate operator, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee’s written submissions and the AO’s Remand Report.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside a ₹1 lakh penalty under Section 271BA, ruling that failure to electronically file the Form 3CEB transfer pricing report was a mere technical and procedural default. Crucially, the report was prepared before the search and later physically filed with the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
The Kerala High Court has temporarily halted income tax recovery proceedings against Palode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Kerala High Court stayed income tax recovery proceedings against a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, citing a pending appeal where the core tax issue is allegedly covered by the Supreme Court’s Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank judgment.
The ITAT restored a charitable trust’s Section 80G(5) final approval application, ruling that rejection solely due to selecting the wrong sub-clause in the online Form 10AB was an error. The Tribunal held that such a technical mistake is curable and not grounds for outright dismissal.
