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.
ITAT Kolkata held that exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act purely on facts which are verifiable from records of the assessee is not justifiable and hence liable to be quashed.
Land sold by assessee was agricultural Land and did not qualify as capital asset in terms of Section 2(14)(iii) as it was subsequent to purchase of land, its use was changed to non-agriculture purpose, therefore, the capital gain earned on the piece of land as not being liable to tax.
Read about the ITAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Sanghamitra Prakash Patel vs. ITO where a penalty was imposed on the assessee for failure to appear before the CIT(A).
ITAT Ahmedabad rules on the treatment of cash receipts from sale of gold/gold ornaments in case of Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed Vs ITO.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
ITAT Raipur held that AO having jurisdiction over the case passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2). Accordingly, the matter quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that gratuity premium paid to LIC was to be treated as business expenditure and the same is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
