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.
In a recent case, ITAT Bangalore deleted a Section 69B addition concerning gold jewelry, as holdings were in line with declarations and purchases.
A recent ITAT Mumbai ruling in Mehboob Amirali Kamdar vs. ITO demonstrates that the absence of actual money receipt and an accounting mistake can prevent a Section 68 addition.
ITAT Pune case: Delayed possession and unresolved disputes led to non-applicability of Section 2(47), sparing the taxpayer from capital gains tax. Learn more.
ITAT Hyderabad directed CIT (A) NFAC to grant the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate its case with a cost of Rs. 3,000 imposed for ignoring notices.
ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Amtech Engineers vs. ITO clarifies that TDS is not applicable under section 194C for casual labor expenses in road construction and crane hiring.
In the Varadaraja Textiles case, ITAT Chennai ruled that depreciation is allowed for a textile spinning unit acquired through an auction sale, disputing the nil cost assessment.
Explore the ITAT Ahmedabad ruling in Amit Dhirajlal Doshi vs. DCIT regarding interest expenditure deduction under Section 57 of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore re-examines deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies’ investments as per the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act.
Case study: JCIT vs. Ajay Sharma. Read NFAC introduction to the case & its findings on Rs. 1.95 crores addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of Income Tax Act.
