ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s 69 towards unexplained money sustained on failure to explain the source of the cash deposits with necessary evidences.
Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that assessee has purchased a house property i.e. a new asset and is entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the act despite the fact that construction activities of the purchase of the new house has started before the date of sale of the original asset which […]
Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur) We find that the assessment was taken up for scrutiny under CASS to examine the deduction claimed chapter VIA for limited purpose and on this issue, there is finding of the ld. AO in the assessment order. Yet, learned PCIT has subjected the assessment order […]
Voluntary Income declared by assessee on its own i.e. without any detection cannot be considered as equivalent to providing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of Income
Jagdish Chandra Suwalka Vs JCIT (ITAT Jaipur) ITAT observed that the provisions contained u/s 275(1)(a)are not applicable on the facts of present case for the reason that undisputedly no appeal has been filed against the assessment order passed on 28.12.2017. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relevant assessment or other order was subjected to […]
mere non-disclosure of agricultural income in the return of income does not change the characteristics of land. Subsequent use of land by the purchaser has no connection to decide the nature of land, whether it is an agricultural land.
ITAT noted that tax consultant of assessee has not followed all tax demands and necessary submissions made to Revenue Authorities during pre-covid period i.e. 06.08.2019 to 14.03.2020.
Ravindra K. Reshamwala Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It could be seen that the assessee had given donation on 21/06/2004 against valid receipt issued by the Trust. The donation was made through cheque which got cleared from assessee’s bank account. The assessee was issued requisite Form No.58A by the trust. The trust had valid registration at […]
Delhi High Court held that sales tax subsidy received by assessee be treated as capital receipt and not be added to income of asseseee.
Ld. AO has disallowed the provision for sick leave amounting to Rs. 80,51,334/- which has already been disallowed by the assessee in its computation of taxable income. Para 5.15 of CIT(A)’s order at page 17 refers. Therefore, sustenance thereof will amount to double disallowance.
