ITAT Mumbai allows the claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA for the assessment year 2020-21, as the taxpayer had filed the original return of income on time. The claim was initially denied due to an error in categorizing the revised return as an original return.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s ruling on a case, ITO Vs Logix Buildcon Pvt Ltd, asserting that the interest incurred towards project expenses cannot be deducted.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad relieves an assessee from penalties due to accountant’s mistake. Full review of Dharmendrakumar B Mehta Vs ITO case here.
ITAT Jaipur held that the difference in the closing stock is emanating from the difference in the working for the preceding years and that such difference cannot be attributed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order not erroneous and jurisdiction of section 263 not invocable.
Explore ITAT Raipur’s verdict on tax collection by District Mining Officer (DMO). Understand the implications of not collecting tax at source (TCS) on compounding fees from illegal miners/transporters. Analysis of Section 206C(1C) and obligations under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted only in respect of turnover of assessee-company relating to international transactions. In nut-shell, transfer pricing addition should be restricted only qua international transaction and not entity level transactions.
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Mumbai’s decision on DCIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd., addressing disallowance of exempt income, inordinate delay, and the crucial role of interest-free funds.
ITAT Kolkata held that non-resident Indian who has provided services as an employee outside India (i.e. in Morocco) is entitled to claim benefit of Article 15(1) of the India Morocco DTAA.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained investment unsustainable as AO failed to place on record any material which would conclusively establish that the said society was a benamidar of the assessee. Accordingly, addition based on bald allegation couldn’t be accepted.
ITAT Delhi held that payment of compounding fee for violation of provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules are allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
