ITAT Mumbai held that as entire reasons for reopening were recorded by incorrect assumption of facts, accordingly, reopening was invalid and bad-in-law. Hence, subsequent invocation of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is untenable in law.
ITAT Delhi condoned delay of 306 days in filing of an appeal based on the reasonable cause that firstly assessee was in prison and when released it was lock-down.
Appellant builder treated Property as stock-in-trade & profits on its sale would be offered as business income and no rental income was received by Appellant from Property.
ITAT Amritsar held that mere typographical mistake in mentioning the balance of capital account doesnot amount to concealment. Accordingly, addition on account of unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore held that for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is required to furnish necessary evidence proving construction of the residential building within the period as enumerated in section 54F of the Act. As assessee failed to produce the same, exemption u/s 54F not available.
Sh. Yasir Bilal Khan Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) ITAT Amritsar held that penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of audit report within specified date leviable as assessee failed to prove nexus between non-completion of the audit report u/s. 44AB with the flood of Kashmir. Facts- The penalty was levied by the ld. AO u/s. 271B of […]
ITAT Bangalore held that income from sale of developed flat, obtained under Joint Development Agreement (JDA), is to be treated as income from short term capital gain/ long term capital gain and not as income from business.
ITAT Amritsar held that provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act cannot be made applicable where assessee has made a statement that the excess stock was a result of suppression of profit in respect of sales made outside the books of accounts.
ITAT Pune held that as NFAC dismissed the claim of deduction u/s 80P on legal issue without considering the case on merits, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
