ITAT Delhi in Padam Singhee Vs DCIT ruled that penalties under section 271AAA of Income Tax Act cannot be levied without a recorded statement
ITAT Cuttack – Abani Pattanayak Vs ACIT- ITAT ruled that maintenance and electricity charges not in the form of deposits are excluded from property cost for computing LTCG
ITAT Mumbai held that no penalty leviable on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act when disallowance has been made on estimate basis and return of income was filed prior to insertion of section 14A of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that order passed by AO u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act not borne out of any record is non-est in the eyes of law.
ITAT Amritsar held that non-filing of tax audit report due to technical glitch is the reasonable cause shown. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable for such non-filing of tax audit report.
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as turnover of the assessee is less than INR 1 Crore. Accordingly, the assessee is outside the purview of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of mere verification of the claim is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Amritsar held that high seas sale transaction cannot be treated as speculative transaction as entire transaction is going through by proper delivery of the goods during purchase and the documents are provided for evidence of delivery of goods.
ITAT Amritsar’s decision in the case of Hari Chand Vs ITO. The appeal challenged the addition of unexplained cash deposits and undisclosed interest income. The ITAT remitted the case back to the AO for further adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper verification and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee. Gain insights into the grounds raised by the assessee and the arguments presented by both parties in this case.
ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner, who had correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had added the differential margin to the assessee’s income based solely on a comparison between industry gross margin and the assessee’s gross margin, without conducting a thorough analysis of the assessee’s business strategy.
