A summary of the ITAT Chennai order, which clarified that payments integral to educational activities for domestic students are applicable in India, even if remitted abroad, contrasting with the NASSCOM ruling on foreign events.
ITAT Chennai holds that ₹2 crore loan cannot be added as unexplained investment in lender’s case when already offered before Settlement Commission by borrower.
Late Mahabir Prasad (through L/H Mrs. Parul Kansaria) Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore Restricts Additions in Search Assessment – Statement Alone Not Incriminating- No Addition in Concluded Years Without Incriminating Material- Unaccounted Sales – Only GP Taxable, Not Entire Turnover Bangalore ITAT dealt with additions arising out of search proceedings in the A-One Steel […]
Chennai Bench clarified that under Section 54, only the portion of capital gains unutilised after 3 years is deemed taxable, deleting addition of full ₹5 crore.
Chennai ITAT set aside the denial of Sections 11 & 12 tax exemption to a Trust, directing the AO to re-examine the claim after the CCIT decides on the pending Form 10B late filing condonation petition.
Chennai ITAT restored an appeal after the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed it by copying a previous year’s order, citing a failure of natural justice and lack of due adjudication.
Bangalore ITAT cancelled a penalty u/s 271D on an 82-year-old for receiving Rs.10 lakh cash from a property sale, finding “reasonable cause” u/s 273B due to his bona fide belief and the transaction’s genuineness.
A summary of the ITAT Chennai’s ruling, which reaffirmed the precedents in Loka Shikshana Trust and New Noble Educational Society, emphasizing that charitable activities must involve formal, scholastic learning and genuine application of income to charitable objects.
Bangalore ITAT restored a case involving Rs.1.49 crore in unexplained cash deposits for fresh assessment, directing the AO to re-examine the source and the CIT(A)’s application of the peak credit method.
The ITAT Chennai quashed additions under Section 68 against Arusuvai Food Processors, ruling that the provision only applies to fresh unexplained credits during the Assessment Year, not to genuine, consistently disclosed brought-forward trade payables.
