In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT observed that since, the assessee is found to be functionally comparable to the business auxiliary service providers, therefore it is established that the assessee has undertaken limited functions and risk in the merchanting trades segment and earns a fixed profit margin.
Iqbal Singh HUF Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Non-compliance with order of CIT (Appeals) cannot be sole reason to allow an addition on taxpayer
ITAT Cochin order for Karalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO. Order was set aside due to CIT(A) failing to provide reasons for decision on issues raised by assessee.
The ITAT Bangalore has allowed the appeal of Dunichand Khitri Raja against the disallowance of a claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT held that the delay in filing Form 10CCB, due to technical glitches beyond the assessee’s control, should not bar the claim of deduction.
ITAT Delhi dismissed appeal of S K G Traders P Ltd against disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC under section 36(i)(va) read with section 43B of Income Tax Act. The ITAT upheld disallowance, citing judgment in Checkmate Services case.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that mere estimate of cost by Departmental Valuer could not constitute material to concealment and therefore levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid.
The ITAT Bangalore has directed the re-adjudication of the case of Satish Panduranga against the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the ground of non-reply to a notice issued during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Surat has dismissed the appeal of Adarsh Sahakari Ghar Bandhnari Mandali Ltd, a co-operative housing society, confirming that expenses incurred on internet subscriptions are not eligible for deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal ruled that there was no nexus between the expenses and the interest income earned by the society.
ITAT Bangalore deleted the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Dhanasingh Nagamuthu vs. ITO. The tribunal found that the assessing officer had not given the assessee a proper opportunity to respond and establish reasons for non-compliance, as required under Section 274(1) of the Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore has directed the re-adjudication of the case between Centre for e-Governance and DCIT. The ITAT found that the assessing officer had disallowed the claim of accumulation of 85% of income under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act due to the lack of a specific purpose mentioned in Form 10.
