ITAT Rajkot held that in absence of any specific provisions under the Income Tax Act, notional income on advance cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that set-off of losses when there is a change in shareholding involves interpretation of various provisions and laws and hence it is not a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, rectification power under section 154 cannot be invoked.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the confirmation letter was filed by the assessee from Donor, the burden cast upon assessee is discharged and it would shift to revenue authorities. The Revenue authorities cannot make addition towards unexplained deposits without making any further enquiry.
Held that the disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund paid before filing income tax return u/s 139(1), based on the statement made in the Tax Audit Report is not permissible u/s. 143(1)(a) as did not fall within the ambit of prima-facie adjustments.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per provisions of section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act reopening of assessment beyond four years period needs sanction from either Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. However, sanction from Joint Commissioner in the present case makes the entire reopening proceedings bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that where two views are possible and AO adopted the one which Commissioner doesn’t agree then in such case revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not permissible for mere difference of view.
Nirmala Subramanian Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai) The short question in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Act or not and what is the date of acquisition of new residential house for the purpose of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Provision of Section 54 […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because the books of accounts have been subjected to tax audit under Section 44AB of the Act and the Auditor had certified the books of accounts to be in order, the contention made by the assessee cannot be stated to be full proof.
ITAT Bangalore held that merely for the reason that the assignment agreement is not registered, the actual outflow from the hands of the assessee towards acquisition of the property cannot be ignored for computing the capital gains.
ITAT held that TDS credit shall be given to deductee for Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) for which such income is assessable under Income Tax Act, 1961
