ITAT Raipur held that AO having jurisdiction over the case passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2). Accordingly, the matter quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that gratuity premium paid to LIC was to be treated as business expenditure and the same is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Explore the case of Daechang Seat Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT at ITAT Chennai, involving a ‘conflict of interest’ issue. Learn about legal principles, professional conduct, and how it impacts income-tax proceedings
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as voluntary deposit of tax was done before receiving notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Raipur held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act within the time period contemplated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) to Section 275, i.e six months from the end of the month in which appellate order was received is duly justified.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee has placed sufficient evidences to discharge initial onus to explain the nature and source of loans. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan unjustified.
ITAT Jodhpur held that levying late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing TDS return for 4th quarter of F.Y. 2012-2013 unwarranted as power to levy fees has come into effect only from 01.06.2015
ITAT Mumbai held that receipts taxable under Fees for Technical/ Included Services (FTS/FIS) as assessee failed to prove that it is actual reimbursement as there is no basis of allocation or actual cost incurred for affiliates.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessment order passed by AO after considering the information filed during assessment proceedings cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
ITAT Kolkata held that rejection of claim of long-term capital loss u/s 50B of the Income Tax Act unjustified as Form 3CEA filed during the assessment proceedings along with an affidavit mentioning reason for non-furnishing of Form 3CEA with return of income.
