Explore the ITAT Hyderabad order on Veerabhadra Minerals Pvt Ltd’s appeal against the disallowed overburden removal expenditure. Learn about the assessing officer’s concerns, CIT(A)’s decision, and ITAT’s direction to delete 75% of the addition. Get insights into the reasoning and implications for mining contracts.
Explore the ITAT Chennai’s order in the case of Tulsian Refinery Pvt. Limited vs. DCIT for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. Discover how the deletion of additions related to bogus interest expenditure was determined through sworn statements and reconciliation statements, and the impact of Hon’ble ITSC’s findings on KRPL. Read the full text of the order and gain insights into the assessment and appellate proceedings.
ITAT allows Rental Expenses for Property taken on Rent for Business Purpose. Learn about the ruling on Appeal by the Revenue for AY 2014-15. Google ITAT Order for Delhi.
Read the detailed analysis of DCIT vs. Agni Estates & Foundations Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) case. ITAT upholds deletion of disallowance of sponsorship expenses and interest under Income Tax Act.
Understand the implications of ITAT Delhi’s decisions on Professional Fees Share Purchase Agreement Drafting Revenue Expenditure for AY 16-17. Explore ACIT vs. SSP Pvt. Ltd case & the dispute related to advocate fees and advertisement expenses.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Delhi upholds deletion of cash addition in DCIT vs. Atul Gupta case for AY 2017-18 after demonetization. Get the full order details here
ITAT quashes penalty order under section 271D as it was time-barred. Detailed analysis of Ram Kishan Verma Vs Additional CIT (ITAT Jaipur) case.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the addition towards unexplained cash credit as AO failed to conduct independent inquiry and addition was made merely for the reason that there was minor difference in amount of cash deposited vis-à-vis amount of demand draft and amount of invoice.
ITAT Mumbai held that as the assessee should be aware of the exact charge for which the penalty proceeding has been initiated, non-striking on the irrelevant limb under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.
ITAT Bangalore held that initiation of proceedings against the person other than the searched person under section 148, instead of section 153C, of the Income Tax Act is without any jurisdiction and hence held liable to be set aside.
