ITAT’s ruling affirms that a Co-operative Society can claim deductions for the interest income derived from a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) with a Co-operative Bank.
ITAT Ahmedabad in Sureshbhai Ashwinbhai Patel Vs ITO clarified that complete sale consideration from such a property cannot be attributed as capital gain of a single co-owner.
Rule 8(1) states that income from business of tea growing & manufacturing is computed as 40% of total income determined under Income Tax Act
A penalty of was levied under section 271FA of Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s subsequent appeal, stating that SFT was filed when e-filing portal was available, lacked supporting evidence and hence did not hold in court.
Vinit Kumar Vs DCIT – ITAT Delhi clarified the application of Section 56(2)(vii) on properties purchased for more than the circle rate.
Detailed analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Nijhawan Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, exploring the critical determination that the loss of Chit Fund used for business is allowable as a business loss.
ITAT Kolkata’s decision, invalidating reassessment for Vansa Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO due to non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within stipulated timeframe.
ITAT Kolkata deletes the penalty imposed on Devnadi Advisory Pvt. Ltd. due to alleged non-compliance of notice under section 271B of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Hyderabad case Narasimha Rao Venkata Lakshmi Nandury Vs ITO, emphasizing that a meritorious case should not be dismissed when proper documents are produced
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
