ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when an assessee doesn’t furnish inaccurate income details. This ruling was made in the case of Khanpur Vibhag Madhyamik Shala Karmchari Dhiran & Grahak Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs ACIT
AOP inadvertently filed their income tax return using ITR 7 instead of ITR 5. ITAT held that Income Tax Authorities are not supposed to punish assessees for their bona fide mistake.
In the case of Patel Ambalal Haridas – HUF Vs ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad orders re-evaluation of land value under section 50C, pointing to a failure to consider the Jantri value and Valuation Report. The case impacts how land value is assessed for capital gains tax purposes.
ITAT Pune in Pride Purple Properties, quashed retrospective determination of annual letting value of un-sold residential units. ITAT ruled that prospective amendments cannot apply retrospectively, providing clarity on taxation of real estate properties.
In Pavuluri Sylendra Nellore Vs ITO case, ITAT Hyderabad confirms addition under section 69C due to unexplained source of credit card payment.
Delhi High Court has directed readjudication in the case of Praveen Bansal Vs ITO, stating that the assessment order under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is not valid if the escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs.
ITAT Delhi has ordered a fresh adjudication in the case of TSP Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, challenging the addition of a loan amount to the outstanding balance without proper evidence and documentation.
ITAT Chennai’s upholds entitlement of assessee to interest on tax refund under Section 244A, emphasizing principles of fairness and equity
ITAT Chennai quashed a penalty on cash payment of defaulted EMI, arguing that case presented a ‘reasonable cause’ under Section 273B.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as reasonable cause shown for non-submission of audit report.
