ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on account of interest income earned on fixed deposits from Banks and rental income earned by the Society are eligible to set off of maintenance expenses. Thus, addition deleted.
ITAT Nagpur held that once the computation of income is approved by the assessee before CIT(A) the same cannot be argued against the Tribunal. Accordingly, computation of income directed by CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue has wrongly proceeded on mis-appreciation of facts of substantive nature as purchase of property wrongly alleged by AO as sale of property. Thus, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as cash deposits during demonetization period duly recorded in books of account and source of cash deposits duly maintained.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as sale consideration of shares duly reflected in the profit and loss account of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that holding period of the capital goods includes the date on which asset is acquired and also date of sale/ transfer of the same. Accordingly, shares held for exactly 12 months treated as long term.
ITAT Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
Assessee, an individual, had deposited cash in his bank account. During assessment, AO observed that assessee had entered into share transactions and earned income from commodities through Multi Commodity Exchange.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
