State Bank of India Vs PCIT-2 (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT note that the AO during the assessment proceedings had requested the assessee to furnish explanation in respect of such items of expenses and receipt appearing in the trading accounts and profit and loss accounts (either by way of excess or reduction) in comparison to last year. […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan taken at higher rate for commercial expediency is admissible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act correctly invoked as AO failed to examine the issue of purchase of land in the light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) beyond time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act is time barred and bad in law.
Mangal Credit and Fincorp Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, the assessee has received money on issuing share capital in the form of exercise of rights in share warrants. The share capital so collected by the assessee is not in the course of negotiations for transfer of capital asset. The shares so […]
assessee has filed the return of income belatedly for the year under consideration but there is no prohibition to adjust the brought forward losses against the income declared belatedly in the return of income under the provision of section 139(3) of the Act.
Penalty was levied under section 271 B of the Act on the ground that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed by the assessee before filing of return of income and no explanation was given.
Addl. CIT Vs Tejal Ashish Mehta (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has furnished a copy of Income Tax return for assessment year 2016-17. A perusal of the same shows that in Schedule – EI, wherein the assessee was required to declare exempt income, the assessee has duly reflected the maturity value of the insurance policy. The […]
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s 69 towards unexplained money sustained on failure to explain the source of the cash deposits with necessary evidences.
Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that assessee has purchased a house property i.e. a new asset and is entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the act despite the fact that construction activities of the purchase of the new house has started before the date of sale of the original asset which […]
