ITAT Mumbai condones a 314-day delay in Atlantic Bio Medical Pvt. Ltd.’s appeal, citing a bona fide mistake in tax filing and a right to a fair hearing.
ITAT Bangalore held that that mens rea is not an essential condition for imposing penalties under civil acts. Penalty u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act nowhere specifically refers necessity of presence of mens rea for levy of penalty. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
ITAT Delhi quashes penalty on Babu Ram u/s 271(1)(c) as barred by limitation. Penalty order dated April 1, 2022, violated extended timelines due to COVID-19.
ITAT Pune held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) needs to be condoned firstly by excluding COVID-19 pandemic outbreak period and further since rectification application was pending before CPC.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on record incriminating the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 deleted.
ITAT Pune held that delay in filing audit report in Form 10CCB due to technical problem is justifiable and hence denial of claim under section 80IAC of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, order set aside to AO to consider audit report.
ITAT Jaipur held that amount of sundry debtor recorded in books of account are not any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and hence doesn’t qualify as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench “A,” has ruled in favor of Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd.), setting aside the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal […]
ITAT Nagpur rules in ITO Vs N. Kumar Housing, addressing ₹5.2 crore addition under Sections 41(1) and 68. Liability cessation and unexplained cash credits analyzed.
ITAT Pune rules in Ramchandra Jadhavrao vs. ACIT that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies if income is declared in return post-survey.
