Penalty under section 270 A was not leviable as the nature of addition/disallowance were not in the nature of misreporting or misreporting income of assessee and assessee had paid the demand within 30 days and filed the required form no. 68 and that form was procedural in nature.
ITAT Mumbai held that adoption of value of land as determined by the Stamp Duty Authority without referring the valuation to Valuation Officer u/s. 50C of the Income Tax Act unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored for de novo adjudication.
Assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) with a delay of about 133 days in filing the appeal. However, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay and without adjudicating the issues on merits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there is no basis for linking assessee’s alleged violation of RBI notification dated 8th November 2016 to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, when the nature and source is explained.
ITAT Bangalore in the case of cash deposit during demonetization period directed assessee to file KYC of the depositors and accordingly directed AO to verify the same and allow if found in order.
Assessee filed his original income tax return on 31-08-2019 and revised the return on 19-06-2020. He submitted Form 67 to claim the foreign tax credit but AO denied the FTC claim due to the late filing of Form 67.
Section 263 cannot be invoked without substantial grounds, particularly when the AO has followed due process during the assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad grants stay of tax recovery in Siddhi Parag Patel vs ITO case. The dispute centers on unexplained land investments and tax demand revisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Finance Act, 2022 amended section 14A of the Income Tax Act doesn’t have retrospective effect. The said amended provisions are effective from 1st April 2022.
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 justified as AO was fully ignorant about verification of unsecure loan and addition of 10% unsecured loan by AO was baseless hence assessment order turned out to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
