ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and the said benefit cannot be extended to a partnership firm.
Learn how ITAT Mumbai overturned a decision to disallow excessive commission paid by Srinathji Yamunaji Enterprises, citing lack of evidence and business necessity.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as assessee has established the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares by producing documentary evidence and transaction of purchase and sale of shares is done via banking channel.
ITAT Mumbai held that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that passing of an order in the name of an entity which has merged with another entity will make the order void ab initio. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
Read about the ITAT Ahmedabad’s decision in the case of Vivekkumar S Bhavsar vs ITO, where the matter was remanded back to the AO due to lack of cooperation from the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
The ITAT Delhi orders a review of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India’s income tax exemption claim, sending the matter back for verification by the AO.
Ahmedabad ITAT rules in favor of Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., stating AO’s incorrect calculation isn’t failure to disclose, thus invalidating assessment reopening beyond 4 years.
In the case of SVT Wholesale Pvt. Ltd. Vs JCIT, the ITAT Bangalore evaluates the penalty imposed under Section 271D for violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn about the legal arguments, precedents, and the tribunal’s decision.
Read a detailed analysis of the case of DCIT vs. Flax Apparels Pvt. Ltd. where ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 doesn’t apply when payment precedes the claim of expenditure.
