In-depth analysis of the ITAT Delhi case, Nitin Kumar Vs ITO, determining that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not taxable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person is invalid. Accordingly, order passed thereon is also invalide in the eyes of law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no penalty can be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses incurred for increase of authorized share capital since no penalty can be imposed when there was no willful concealment.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition in case of bogus purchases are restricted only to the extent of profit element involved on such purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) correctly restricted addition to the extent of 10%.
The provisions of section 44AD/44AF of the Act apply only to presumptive assessment, where the turnover is Rs.40.00 lacs or less and not the cases, where turnover is more than that.
A deep dive into the significant ruling of ITAT Mumbai in ITO Vs Asahi Infrastructure Projects Ltd case, exploring the issues related to the reopening of the assessment and non-genuine purchases, as per the guidelines set in the landmark GKN Driveshaft case.
ITAT Pune held that denial of granting of exemption under section 80G of the Income Tax Act because of spent more than 5% for religious purpose from its total income i.e. violating provisions of section 80G(5B) of the Income Tax Act is justified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on account of cash deposited in bank accounts sustained as the assessee failed to give any explanation regarding such cash found to be credited in the bank accounts.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction of TDS vis-à-vis amortization of discount on debentures needs fresh adjudication in the light of additional evidences filed by the revenue. Accordingly, matter restore back.
ITAT Pune held that imposition of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb within which the penalty is imposed is unsustainable. Failure of AO to quote any of the six sub-limbs as prescribed u/s 270A(9) makes imposition of penalty unsustainable
