In the matter aforementioned ITAT deleted addition made on account of Client Code Modification after observing that assessee utilized its own funds to conduct transactions on NSEL platform and the profits from such transactions have already been offered to tax.
ITAT Mumbai rules that a Section 143(1) adjustment becomes infructuous once a regular assessment under Section 143(3) is completed, especially if the returned income is accepted as the assessed income.
ITAT Ahmedabad condones a 340-day delay in an appeal on unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A and remands the case for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai quashes CIT(A)’s order dismissing HPCL’s appeal, citing non-compliance with prior tribunal directives. The case involves interest on refunds and the now-defunct Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The tribunal mandates a fresh hearing on the merits of the case.
Key ITAT Delhi decision in ACIT Vs Hella India Lighting Ltd.: Analysis of Section 69C addition, expense disallowance, and foreign exchange loss claims for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Chennai held that although the assessee company was following the mercantile system of accounting, only real income could be brought to tax. Hypothetical income cannot be taxed. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition under section 68 towards unsecured loan from related party cannot be sustained since identity, creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction proved. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that order of transfer of case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of being heard to appellant is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of CIT(A).
ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for delay in uploading audit report set aside as reasonable cause shown and there was only technical breach without any loss to exchequer of the Government.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee after deleting the addition made u/s 68 after observing the fact that assessee had filed relevent details during assesssment.
