ITAT Bangalore remanded the matter back to AO for fresh consideration as assessee didn’t proved existence of business exigency in making payment in cash and AO didn’t carried necessary enquiry before making addition u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained expenditure merely on the basis of suspicion without any other support is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act justified as assessee trust having multiple objects doesn’t satisfy the condition of ‘solely for educational purposes’.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee trust under the umbrella of Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer is genuinely performing its activities and objects of imparting education to the students coming off from poor or middle class families. Accordingly, denial to register the trust u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Delhi’s verdict on JBJ Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT: Rectification under Section 154 of Income Tax Act can’t adjust prior period expenses.
Review of ITAT Mumbai’s ruling in Kamlesh Vasant Nerkar Vs CIT, emphasizing the need for AO to recognize income that has been adequately explained by the taxpayer.
In Sandip Chattopadhyay vs. ITO case, ITAT Kolkata ruled that deductions under sections 24(b), 80C, and 80D cannot be denied for not being claimed in ITR.
An analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in the Neeti Rastogi vs. ACIT case, emphasizing CBDT Circular’s role in defining unexplained jewellery under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest paid on housing loan borrowed for purchase of flat is not allowable as cost of acquisition.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on the basis of fall in gross profits without pointing out any specific discrepancy in accounts that resulted into suppression of true figure of gross profit is unsustainable in law.
