There is no bar on appellate authority to entertain additional claim during assessment proceedings in absence of any statutory provisions.
Delve into the Kolkata ITAT’s ruling regarding Form No. 10AB applications under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) for registration, analyzing its impact on Santiniketan Sishutirtha vs CIT (Exemptions).
Delhi ITAT rules on the filing of Form 10CCB before due date per Sec 139(1). Analysis of Sanjay Kukreja vs ACIT case & its impact on deduction u/s 80-IA.
In Bharat Agro Industries Vs DCIT, New Delhi ITAT questions the logic of treating sales as bogus when purchases are genuine and stock is accepted.
New Delhi ITAT explains that Explanation 3 to Sec 147 can’t justify additions unrelated to reasons for reopening. Read the detailed analysis.
Indore ITAT clarifies that a firm can’t deny land ownership if bought through directors. Read the detailed analysis of Bagora Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT case.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee selecting Associated Enterprise (AE) as “tested party” justifiable. Accordingly, transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee is duly acceptable.
ITAT Mumbai held that there is a fundamental gap between guarantee and Letter of Comfort. Guarantee is a legally enforceable; however, Letter of Comfort is not. Thus, issuing Letter of Comfort to the Bankers of AE, the assessee did not incurred any cost and hence it does not constitute international transaction under section 92B of the Act
ITAT Hyderabad held that revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified as consistency not followed in treatment of foreign exchange gain/loss amounts to error in sofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as appellant cannot be penalized for the mistake committed by the developer/seller in allocating the flat. Thus, exemption u/s. 54 granted as all the conditions satisfied.
