Discover how the ITAT Delhi deleted the addition u/s 69 in Vipul Gupta vs DCIT, highlighting the significance of evidence and agreements in tax assessments.
Learn about the Chennai ITAT ruling in Conferencecall Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, where a final assessment made after one month of DRP directions was declared time-barred.
Devki Nandan Maheshwari vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) case: Exploring how cash deposits in lender’s bank account were accepted as explained sources, justifying an unsecured loan under Section 68 of Income Tax Act.
Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violation of section 269SS of the IT Act, if any, would call for a separate penalty under section 271D, not an addition under section 68.
In Sunil Amritlal Shah vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai ruled on Sec.54 deduction, stating possession date as relevant for under-construction property. Read the full analysis.
Assessing Officer has nowhere determined as to how Section 194C is applicable on payments made by assessee. Unless a charge is being determined, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made.
ITAT concluded that the service of notice under Section 148 was improper and did not meet statutory requirements. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was deemed invalid, and the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
ITAT Mumbai confirms ₹1.45 crore short-term capital gains addition under Section 50C for land transfer, rejecting the taxpayer’s claim of purchase on behalf of a company.
ITAT Mumbai upholds Bytescale Technologies’ deduction for trading activity under Section 10AA for AY 2018-19; foreign tax credit also approved
Kuna Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT – ITAT Ahmedabad allowed assessee’s appeal, holding that assessee had provided sufficient details regarding identity and creditworthiness of shareholders.
