Ghatkesar Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) ITAT held that assessee being a primary agricultural co-operative society invested the own surplus funds with the Union Bank of India and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It could be seen from the name of […]
Provision of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act does not make any distinction in regard to source of the investment because this Section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by co-operative society from any investment with a co-operative society.
Nirmal Kumar Minda Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.37.50 lacs u/s. 69B of the Act in respect of 6 paintings found at the residence of the assessee. The underlying facts in the impugned issue are that 6 paintings were found at the time of search which were got […]
CIT(A) was not right in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act when the return was filed under Section 148 itself and therefore, the interest should be charged from the date of notice under Section 148 of the Act itself and not from the date of return filed under Section 139 or it is due date under Section 139.
DCIT Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal (ITAT Delhi) The undisputed fact is that the substantive as well as protective additions have been made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. A bare perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that no money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found during search conducted on 07.04.2017 which is […]
ITO Vs Rajesh Kumar Chhanalal Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ahmedabad ITAT upholds CIT(A) order deleting the addition of Rs. 86.75 Cr under Section 69A as Assessee’s unexplained income; Holds that the cash deposited in bank account cannot be treated as unexplained as the Revenue himself in the remand report and on verification accepted that the entire […]
ITAT Mumbai held that tally accounts produced before CIT(A) provides only better clarity and understanding of seized documents which are already on record before AO. Hence, submission of the same before CIT(A) doesn’t violate provisions of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Pune held that contribution of undivided title and rights in the land as share of capital in AOP is taxable under section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that claim of deduction of cost of building is not allowable as there was no mentioning of any value of the building in the schedule of the fixed assets.
ITAT Pune held that claim of indexed cost of development not acceptable as assessee failed to furnish any evidence towards the same.
