In a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi restores a case involving Golden Traders vs. ITO due to the assessee’s failure to compile data during the COVID-19 pandemic, challenging an addition under Section 69B.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act treating share transactions as bogus merely on the basis of statement of the broker is unsustainable and bad-in-law.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Leave & License Fee is assessable under the head “Profits & Gains of Business” and not under “Income from House Property”.
ITAT acknowledged that individuals like the appellant, often women with limited income sources, should be spared from the strenuous process of income tax assessments, especially when dealing with small amounts.
In the case of ACIT vs. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi excludes Infosys from the list of comparables under the software development services segment.
In the case of Kanav Metals vs. ITO, ITAT Delhi rules that there can be no protective addition in the absence of a substantive addition. Read the full analysis.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 unwarranted for non-reflection of investment in Schedule of Foreign Assets in return as it was not malafide or dishonest breach/ non-disclosure.
Explore the Ankit Jain vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) case, emphasizing the crucial role of DIN in assessment orders. Learn about ITAT’s decision and CBDT circular implications.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to an undertaking developing and building housing projects. The same is not applicable to a partner in a joint venture/partnership firm.
