In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad declares an assessment order void, passed in the name of a non-existent entity after a court-approved amalgamation.
In Narayan Dattarao Giram Vs ITO, ITAT Pune grants the assessee another chance due to a Chartered Accountant change resulting in non-receipt of notices.
ITAT Hyderabad held that claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act not available as the flats sold are not hold for a minimum period of 3 years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as source of cash deposit on account of sale of petrol, diesel and other petroleum products duly proved.
ITAT Chennai held that subsidy received from Government of India under the Focus Market Scheme is Revenue in nature. The same cannot be at any stretch of imagination considered as capital in nature.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Concentrix Daksh Services vs ACIT case. Understanding the applicability of concessional tax rates and the misconceptions.
Explore Almech Enterprises Vs. ACIT case. Learn why a cash shortfall in a survey compared to books doesn’t warrant an addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
Receipts from providing information technology related support services could not be considered as royalty and/fees for technical services as while running the services, assessee had not made available any technical knowledge, experience, skill in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and as such, receipts in question were not FTS liable to tax in India.
Held that the entries in the books of account of amalgamating companies prior to amalgamation cannot be part of the additions made under section 153A in the hands of the assessee (i.e. amalgamated company). Accordingly, additions deleted.
AO without bringing any material or reasons before making any addition, simply added back the opening balances of the trade payables without making any verification from the parties and he had failed to discharge the preliminary onus and had made the addition in summary manners, therefore, CIT(A) had committed no error in deleting the addition made u/s 41.
