ITAT Delhi held that revised return cannot be filed to cover up deliberate omission etc. in the original return. Thus, claim of the Assessee towards incurring impugned capital loss and carryforward thereof vide the revised return is unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore Held that not every deposit during the demonetization period would fall under category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash. Matter remanded for re-verification.
The ITAT Mumbai case of Rajesh Prabhudas Parekh vs CIT(A), ITO is an insightful judgment on on-money payments in real estate transactions and the necessity of corroboration in such cases.
Overview of the ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in Babusinh P. Thakor Vs ITO case, including wrongful assessment of tax liability and the implications for future income tax assessments.
In the case of N.B. Builders & Promoters (P) Ltd Vs CIT, ITAT Chandigarh held that penalties cannot be imposed for mere lower gross profit based on assumptions and conjectures.
ITAT noted that Interest income was earned on NSC, fixed deposit/certificate of bank as a result of a mandatory business requirement as per the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, the interest earned from these deposits was indeed a business income, making it eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Delhi in Manveer Singh Vs ITO case emphasised requirement of obtaining bank statement before issuing a reassessment notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act on alleged cash deposits based on AIR information even, leading to deletion of income tax addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee being a corporate assessee and subjected to statutory audits cannot be done in a light manner. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO for re-adjudication.
ITAT Panaji held that payment of interest on loan taken for paying compensation to the family members of the assessee pursuant to an arbitral award on family settlement has nothing to do with LTCG on sale of the said capital asset. Accordingly, payment of such interest cannot be claimed as deduction u/s 48.
In the recent case of Sandhya Agarwal Vs ACIT, ITAT Kolkata orders re-adjudication due to a mismatch between contract receipts in Form 26AS and Income Tax Return.
