ITAT Pune held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from the investment with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT has held in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO that when there is no variation in the returned and assessable income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable.
Discover the details of the ITAT Kolkata ruling in the case of India Industrial Mission Vs DCIT regarding the delay in filing Form 10B and the implications for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT Delhi has upheld the enhanced addition of Advertising & Marketing Expenses in the case of HPL Additives Ltd Vs DCIT, citing the failure to substantiate the business purpose of the expenses.
The tribunal observed that the liability to pay the Customs Duty had crystallized during the relevant year, as the company could not fulfill its export obligation. Therefore, the deduction of the Customs Duty was allowable in the same year. The ITAT Chennai cited Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, which allows deductions for statutory dues in the year of payment, irrespective of the accounting method followed by the assessee.
ITAT Kolkata held that making the addition for under valuation of closing stock for not adding making charges specifically for the year under appeal cannot be held to be justified unless and until corresponding adjustment is made for the opening stock. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, de novo adjudication ordered as CIT(A) didn’t rendered any finding on merits.
ITAT Pune held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act based on new agricultural land bought in the name of the son and daughter-in-law and not in the name of the assessee is not allowable.
ITAT Nagpur held that the assessee is undoubtedly entitled to hold two different portfolios in respect of the same kind of asset i.e. stock in trade and investment. Since, the land was held as investment the same is assessable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’.
ITAT Chennai held that CIT(A) deleted disallowance of interest made u/s 36(1)(iii) based on the fresh evidences furnished by the assessee. However, CIT(A) failed to afford an opportunity to AO to verify the fresh evidence which is in violation of Rule 46A and hence order remanded back to AO to verify the evidences.
