ITAT Raipur held that assessee failed to put forth the reasonable cause because of which provisions of section 269T of the Income Tax Act was not complied. Accordingly, penalty under section 271E of the Income Tax Act leviable.
ITAT Guwahati held that submission of documents proved the identity of the creditors, however, genuineness of the transactions is not proved. Matter set aside for fresh consideration.
ITAT Jaipur held that there cannot be a second round of penalty for same defaults. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act for second time is unsustainable.
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) The entire issue is in two parts, one is legal issue by challenging the jurisdiction of notice u/s 148 and the jurisdiction of the ld. AO related to calculation of capital gain of the assessee without referring the issue to DVO. The last issue was challenged by the […]
Malwa Coop. L & C Society Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) In its fact, that the gross receipt should be determined by allowing the reasonable deduction of the items like TDS, VAT, security letter cess and other deduction. Accordingly, the assessee made a correct calculation related to calculation of the contract receipt. Both the Revenue […]
Kanta Govind Singh Vs ACIT CPC TDS (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee, aged 85 years, purchased property from non-residents joint owners. TDS was deducted u/s 195 at lower rates as the sellers obtained lower tax certificates. Sale consideration was paid on 20.06.19 & TDS was also paid on the same day though assessee could have paid the […]
DCIT Vs Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (ITAT Amritsar) The undisputed facts in the present case are that the assessee claimed excise duty refund and interest subsidy as revenue receipt in the return of income and the assessment order was passed on 17.12.2009. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of J & K in the case of […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income generated by the assessee cannot be held bogus only based on the modus operandi. To hold income earned by the assessee as bogus, specific evidence has to be brought on record by the Revenue. In absence of any specific finding, assessee cannot be held to be guilty.
ITAT Bangalore held that when the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to nonrural/urban advances.
ITAT Delhi held that violation of section 40A(3) sustained as the reply provided by the assessee is hypothetical and non-satisfying.
