ITAT Bangalore rules against adhoc expense disallowance without rejecting books of accounts, citing Karnataka HC’s stance in Konkan Marine Agencies case.
ITAT Hyderabad held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on the ground of non-deposition of self-assessment tax by the assessee needs re-verification since assessee incurred losses and therefore has a reason for not depositing the self-assessment tax. Hence, matter remanded.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that order of PCIT invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act set aside as conditions necessary for invoking Section 263 of the Act, i.e., the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, are not satisfied.
Notice under section 148 was issued upon assessee by AO for reassessing the cash deposit as undisclosed income, following approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT).
ITAT Mumbai cancels ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on Sameer Mavji Patel under Section 271B for delayed tax audit report, citing reasonable cause due to survey delays.
Assessee, a resident of USA, filed his return claiming refund of Rs.58,57,820/-. During assessment year, assessee had sold two properties for consideration of Rs.1,95,00,0000/- and Rs.72,36,552/- respectively.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any incriminating material seized from assessee’s premises is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
The assessee had filed return of income of Rs.92,06,590 which was selected for complete scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, AO had examined the expenses debited in regard to the sets under consideration.
ITAT Hyderabad directed to exclude companies having turnover of more than or less than 10 times of the turnover of the assessee from the list of comparable. Accordingly, matter remanded back to the file of AO/ TPO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held the Discounted Cash Flow Method [DCF method] adopted by the assessee for valuing the CCPS is legitimate and in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. The AO cannot reject the method chosen by the assessee if it is prescribed by law.
