ITAT Raipur held that providing unreasonably short period of time of six days for furnishing reply vide notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is against the mandate of law and hence liable to be set aside.
AO could not reject the LTCG Exemption claim based on mere surrounding circumstances or probabilities without presenting any legal evidence against him: ITAT
ITAT Jaipur accepts LTCG claim of Vivek Agarwal; rejects AO’s addition under Section 68, citing adequate evidence of share transactions and demat holdings.
ITAT Kolkata deletes addition under Section 68, accepting LTCG on share sale by Kiran Kothari as genuine, rejecting AO’s reliance on general reports.
ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of an auto-rickshaw driver, rejecting a ₹103 Crore income addition, citing insufficient investigation by the AO.
ITAT Bangalore rules software development as “production”, allowing Bosch’s claim under Sections 32(1)(iia) and 32AC for depreciation and investment allowance.
ITAT Bangalore denies Section 11 exemption to Al-Badar Trust, citing capitation fee collection as lacking charitable intent under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai allows appeal by Kalpana Dilip Mehta, quashing reassessment order as time-barred, emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods in income tax law.
ITAT Delhi held that while computing total income as per Rule 5 r.w. section 44, provisions of section 14A are not applicable. Further, disallowance method of computation of prescribed under Rule 8D is not applicable while “Book Profit” u/s 115JB.
ITAT Raipur held that disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act towards unpaid VAT liability cannot be sustained since the amount was not claimed as an expenditure in P&L account. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
