ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act cannot be cancelled merely because of non-specification of limb i.e., for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income under which penalty is levied.
ITAT Mumbai held that even after request from assessee to refer DVO for correct fair market value of the subject property, AO was duty-bound to refer the same to DVO. Accordingly, matter remanded back with a direction to refer the matter to DVO and decide the issue.
ITAT Bangalore held that payment made towards service charges to CGTM France doesnot fall under the category of fees for technical service. Accordingly, TDS u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
ITAT Kolkata held that post disallowance of employee contribution to PF, only 40% will be taxed as business income in terms of applicable provisions of rule 8(1) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 as assessee is engaged in tea plantation business.
ITAT Jaipur held that cost of improvement cannot be rejected on the reason that building plan approval, property tax, etc. not provided as no building approval is required for construction area of 870 Sq. Fts and property tax was not leviable on the residential house property. Cost of improvement allowable as valuation report submitted.
Pawan Raj Goyal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act via rectification order passed under section 154 stating there was mistake apparent from record is based on surmises and conjectures and hence unsustainable. Facts- Assessee has preferred the present appeal contending that […]
ITAT Delhi held that ESOP (Employees Stock Option) expense is allowable expense under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in computing the income in profit and loss of business or profession.
ITAT Mumbai held that as entire reasons for reopening were recorded by incorrect assumption of facts, accordingly, reopening was invalid and bad-in-law. Hence, subsequent invocation of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is untenable in law.
ITAT Delhi condoned delay of 306 days in filing of an appeal based on the reasonable cause that firstly assessee was in prison and when released it was lock-down.
