Explore ITAT Chennai’s recent ruling in MRS Jewellery Vs DCIT, where they partly upheld the AO’s assessment of excess stock, creating a significant impact on the taxation of jewellery businesses.
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
The ITAT Chennai ordered for the re-adjudication of capital gain assessment in the case of P. Selvamani Ranjithan vs ITO, emphasizing the responsibility of the assessee to prove non-accrual of capital gains.
The ITAT Hyderabad recently ruled in favor of NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited, declaring no disallowance of deduction under section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made if the assessee hasn’t earned any exempt income.
The ITAT Guwahati upholds the disallowance concerning the delay in depositing the Employees’ Contribution Fund in the case of Poddar Car World Pvt Ltd vs ACIT.
The ITAT Kolkata has dismissed the appeal of Rohit Agarwal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Kolkata. The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 46,97,718/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal upheld the decision of the revenue authorities, stating that the transactions in question involved penny stocks and were held to be bogus by the Calcutta High Court.
Explore the verdict of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hemavathi Ramesh Vs ITO, where cash deposits from earlier deposits were deemed taxable. Delve into the legal nuances and implications of the judgement.
An in-depth review of ITAT Pune’s ruling in Jayant Hari Mulay vs DCIT, focusing on the key takeaway that compensation paid to a landlord for delayed handover of flats is deductible as part of work-in-progress.
The tribunal examined previous precedents such as The Vainganga Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO, and found the deduction on interest income received from nominal members has been allowed in these cases. Furthermore, the tribunal took into account that the Kerala Act and Maharashtra Act consider ‘Nominal Members’ within the ambit of ‘Members’, thereby making such interest income eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act is duly available to co-operative society on the interest income/dividend received/earned from deposits with the co-operative banks.
