ITAT Patna rules in favor of the assessee, Nishant Krishna, declaring that insurance claims due to fire loss cannot be disallowed, in the case against JCIT.
ITAT Patna rules in favor of Ravi Lochan Singh, establishing that deductions should not be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) if the recipient includes income from receipts of the assessee in their income tax return.
The ITAT Delhi quashed a notice issued to a deceased person, stating that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable if the assessee didn’t participate in reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT in Delhi has directed a re-adjudication in the case of Kishan Singh & Associates Vs ITO involving an addition made by AO under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act due to non-filing of ROI.
Explore the key aspects and implications of the case Avaya International Sales Ltd Vs ACIT, wherein ITAT Delhi directed a fresh examination of the taxability of support/maintenance services under the India-Ireland DTAA.
Understand the implications of the Jayaraj Charles Vs ITO case where ITAT Chennai ruled no penalty should be imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act when a return isn’t visible on the e-filing portal.
A detailed analysis of the decision made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai in the case of Ambuja Cements Limited Vs ACIT. The Tribunal allowed rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Dive into the Ernst & Young Merchant Vs ACIT case, where ITAT Mumbai assessed an error in the tax auditor’s report concerning provident fund contributions, and understand its implications on taxation law.
The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of Shree Swaminarayan Bhagwan, a religious trust, exempting a gold donation from tax under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The gold donation was utilized for the creation of an art gallery, thereby qualifying as corpus donation.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of Director’s education expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to prove such expenditure had direct relationship with the business activity. Accordingly, assessee failed to prove that expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for business.
