ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained credit duly sustained.
ITAT Indore held that rejection of appeal by CIT(A) on the footing of non-payment of advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b) untenable as payment of advance tax is not applicable in case of reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Indore held that rate of interest on secured loan from banks cannot be compared with the rate of interest on unsecured loan. Accordingly, disallowance of interest u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT has not applied his mind analytically while assuming jurisdiction for taking cognizance under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, in absence of independent application of mind, invocation of revisionary provisions by CIT unsustainable.
ITAT Pune restored the assessment order as assessee neither filed any evidence nor provided material in an attempt to discharge the onus cast upon it in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the condition of make available was not satisfied for services when provided by assessee did not enabled the AEs to apply the technology independently. Thus, technical service provided to AEs not taxable.
ITAT Pune directed addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loans as appellate deliberately withhold information from NFAC and NFAC failed to examine the nature of transaction and passed order in perfunctory manner.
ITAT Pune rules in favor of Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe, deleting addition of cash deposits during demonetization, explained as proceeds from a gold loan.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.
ITAT Pune remands the case of Suhas Maruti Dhankude for re-adjudication due to non-adjudication of jurisdictional grounds and failure to state point of determination.
