ITAT Nagpur quashed the penalty on Ravindra Kharche, finding no misreporting of income due to bona fide claims regarding gratuity exemption.
ITAT Mumbai remands case of Aravind Arunachalam Vellore against ITO for lack of proper notice and communication during appeal process.
Hon’ble ITAT Pune rules that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed for genuine mistakes or debatable claims in tax assessments.
Assessee challenged CIT(A) order before the Bangalore Bench of ITAT arguing that 1450 grams of gold should not be considered unexplained as it fell within the permissible limits of CBDT Instruction No. 1916.
ITAT Chandigarh held that since notices were issued through ITBA portal only it cannot be treated as a valid service of notice. Accordingly, proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money send back for de novo reassessment due to difference in amounts and unclear information.
The assessee is an individual, whose case for AY 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of AIR information available in the system of department, accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2018 and served upon the assessee through RPAD.
ITAT Jaipur held that mere entering into the Development Agreement would not permit invocation of section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act. There is no positive act which indicates that the assessee has treated capital asset as stock-in-trade.
During the course of search/survey operations, it was noticed that the assessee has paid labour charges to three concerns. Post investigation, AO came to the conclusion that the labour charges paid to the concerns were also not genuine.
ITAT Bangalore held that rejection of exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act due to non-appearance of form 10B in e-filing portal unjustified as form was already filed but was not appearing in e-filing portal. Matter remanded for fresh consideration.
