Appellant builder treated Property as stock-in-trade & profits on its sale would be offered as business income and no rental income was received by Appellant from Property.
ITAT Amritsar held that mere typographical mistake in mentioning the balance of capital account doesnot amount to concealment. Accordingly, addition on account of unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore held that for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, the assessee is required to furnish necessary evidence proving construction of the residential building within the period as enumerated in section 54F of the Act. As assessee failed to produce the same, exemption u/s 54F not available.
Sh. Yasir Bilal Khan Vs DCIT (ITAT Amritsar) ITAT Amritsar held that penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of audit report within specified date leviable as assessee failed to prove nexus between non-completion of the audit report u/s. 44AB with the flood of Kashmir. Facts- The penalty was levied by the ld. AO u/s. 271B of […]
ITAT Bangalore held that income from sale of developed flat, obtained under Joint Development Agreement (JDA), is to be treated as income from short term capital gain/ long term capital gain and not as income from business.
ITAT Amritsar held that provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act cannot be made applicable where assessee has made a statement that the excess stock was a result of suppression of profit in respect of sales made outside the books of accounts.
ITAT Pune held that as NFAC dismissed the claim of deduction u/s 80P on legal issue without considering the case on merits, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The issue in the present appeal relates to the exigibility of penalty u/s 271B for failure of the assessee to get accounts audited in respect of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration as required u/s 44AB and furnished to the Assessing Officer before specified due date i.e. due date for filing the return of income.
Chandrakant Tatoba Patil Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) ITAT noted that on an examination of the assessment record, the PCIT found abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to pre-demonetization period. According to the PCIT, during the period from 09-11-2016 to 31-12-2016, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,43,81,225/- which is inclusive of […]
