ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the sole basis that there was mismatch between TDS certificate/26AS and the turnover/receipts shown by the assessee in its P&L account unsustainable as difference successfully established.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act towards investment made out of interest free own funds available with the assessee is unjustifiable and hence deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that invocation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified as AO passed the order without making any enquiry or verification and hence such order passed is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Raipur held that once it is established that the commission income were receivable, the said commission income is liable to be brought to tax in the year in which the same has been accured.
ITAT Kolkata held that claim of deduction towards marketing and sales expenses relating to work-in-progress project is allowable in the year in which project is completed and sales are booked in the profit and loss account.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act sustained as cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be said to be cash gifts received during occasion of marriage in December 2015.
In the case of Smt. Aruna Tiwari Vs. PCIT, the ITAT Raipur ruled that a non-est assessment order cannot be revised by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata allows the appeal in H.K. Dutta & Co. Vs. ACIT, deleting the addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act for a gold loan obtained from a partner and recorded in the books.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed rectification orders passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, upholding the setting off of business loss against property income and income from other sources.
ITAT Delhi held that passing of project-specific architectural drawings and designs with measurements did not amount to making available technical knowledge, know-how, or processes. Since ‘make available’ clause is not satisfied, services rendered to the AOP does not fall within the purview of FIS under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA.
