Nirmal Kumar Minda Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The ground No.2 relates to the addition of Rs.37.50 lacs u/s. 69B of the Act in respect of 6 paintings found at the residence of the assessee. The underlying facts in the impugned issue are that 6 paintings were found at the time of search which were got […]
CIT(A) was not right in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act when the return was filed under Section 148 itself and therefore, the interest should be charged from the date of notice under Section 148 of the Act itself and not from the date of return filed under Section 139 or it is due date under Section 139.
DCIT Vs Shri Sanjay Singhal (ITAT Delhi) The undisputed fact is that the substantive as well as protective additions have been made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. A bare perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that no money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was found during search conducted on 07.04.2017 which is […]
ITO Vs Rajesh Kumar Chhanalal Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ahmedabad ITAT upholds CIT(A) order deleting the addition of Rs. 86.75 Cr under Section 69A as Assessee’s unexplained income; Holds that the cash deposited in bank account cannot be treated as unexplained as the Revenue himself in the remand report and on verification accepted that the entire […]
ITAT Mumbai held that tally accounts produced before CIT(A) provides only better clarity and understanding of seized documents which are already on record before AO. Hence, submission of the same before CIT(A) doesn’t violate provisions of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Pune held that contribution of undivided title and rights in the land as share of capital in AOP is taxable under section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that claim of deduction of cost of building is not allowable as there was no mentioning of any value of the building in the schedule of the fixed assets.
ITAT Pune held that claim of indexed cost of development not acceptable as assessee failed to furnish any evidence towards the same.
ITAT Delhi held that applying the provisions of section 51 of the Act, the amount of advance which was forfeited would be deducted from the cost of acquisition of the asset at the time of actual transfer of the asset in future.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because assessee has dealt with suspected scrips, addition u/s 69C is not justified as purchase and sale of scrips were through recognized stock exchange and payments were through banking channel only.
