Chennai ITAT rules in favor of a taxpayer, deleting a ₹2.26 lakh bonus disallowance after a new CA certificate confirmed an error in the original audit report.
Ahmedabad ITAT overturns a tax disallowance of Rs. 6.78 lakh in cash deposits, accepting a farmer’s claim of income from agriculture, transportation, and family savings.
Somabhai Mohandas Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The case of Somabhai Mohandas Patel vs. ITO before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad involved an appeal by a taxpayer, Somabhai Mohandas Patel, against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upholding the addition of ₹10,33,012 to his income. This addition was made […]
The Allahabad High Court has stayed coercive action against Varun Enterprises, who was penalized for not including a “biltee” number on tax invoices.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a GST assessment order is invalid and can be challenged if it lacks a Document Identification Number (DIN), even after an appeal is rejected.
The ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of Svetlana Gorodinskaia, ruling that unexplained cash of ₹4,07,000/- found during a survey operation must be taxed as “unexplained money” under Section 69A and subjected to the higher tax rates of Section 115BBE
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263. The Tribunal ruled that the income declared as excess stock during a survey must be taxed under Section 115BBE at a higher rate because the assessee failed to prove a direct nexus between the excess stock and suppressed regular business profits.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals of KPC Medical College And Hospital, setting aside penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA, ruling that the show cause notices were invalid for failing to specify the exact charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars).
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s estimation of 12.5% disallowance on ₹2.19 crore alleged bogus purchases, dismissing both assessee’s plea for reduction and Revenue’s demand for higher addition.
The court found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the declared profit rates were comparable to previous years, distinguishing the case from bogus purchases precedents.
