ITAT Pune held that that the authorities under the Act are required to assist the assessee in the assessment proceedings by giving effect on the correct position of law even if the assessee makes wrong claim. Hence assessee is entitled to claim the same as exempted u/s. 10(37) of the Act instead of deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that as per the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT V/s Gumanmal it is held that deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act is available in respect of more than one property
ITAT Delhi held that mere reflection of unexplained cash in the books of accounts without any supportive documents is not valid ground for deletion of the addition by CIT(A). Accordingly addition towards unexplained cash sustainable
ITAT Allahabad held that facts brought to the notice of this Tribunal are relevant and very crucial for deciding the issue under consideration. Since the facts were not produced before earlier authorities impugned order is recalled
Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs DCIT (ITAT Allahabad) in the case in hand, the assessee has admittedly filed the return under wrong provisions of presumptive tax under section 44ADA whereas the commission income as reflected in Form 26AS is subjected to TDS under section 194H and is required to be declared in Form ITR 3 as […]
Sejalbhai G. Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the Revenue submitted that in order to claim the exemption under section 54B of the Act, the agricultural land should be purchased within two years from the date of sale of the original agricultural That is, the agricultural land must have been […]
Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The PCIT has questioned provision for warranty expenses amounting to Rs.2,25,71,530/-. According to the PCIT, there is a five times increase in provision for warranty expenses for the AY 2014-15 when compare to AY 2013-14. Although, the assessee has not explained rational behind substantial increase in expenses, […]
N.C. Rajagopal & Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The assessee has claimed credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 45,59,855/-, whereas DCIT, CPC has allowed TDS credit for Rs. 33,35,055/-. We find that the assessee has claimed credit for TDS pertains to earlier financial years, because income relating to said TDS has been offered to tax […]
Assessee did not file Form 10-IC before due date of filing return of income, i.e. 15/02/2021, which is mandatory condition for claiming option available under section 115BAA of Income Tax Act.
Umamaheswari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) As regards, the first objection of the AO on legal tender of Specified Bank Notes on or after 08.11.2016, I find that as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016, which came into effect from 31.12.2016 appointed date for this purpose means 31.12.2016. Further, as per Sec.5 […]
