The ITAT Delhi deleted a penalty levied under Section 270A against Kanodia Technoplast, ruling that the penalty order was invalid for failing to specify the nature of the offense.
ITAT Ahmedabad upholds PCIT’s decision to set aside an assessee’s tax assessment, ruling that the AO’s failure to investigate a bogus donation claim under Section 80G was erroneous.
In Sicily Paul vs. ITO, the ITAT Cochin ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation from a son-in-law’s NRE account were sufficiently explained, deleting a ₹12 lakh addition. The ruling rejected the lower authorities’ assumption that the funds had been used elsewhere.
ITAT Chennai upholds a hospital’s claim for a tax deduction under Section 35AD, ruling that a medical director’s certificate and other evidence confirm the 100-bed requirement was met, despite initial departmental findings.
In ACIT vs. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT Ranchi upheld the deletion of a Rs. 6 crore income addition, ruling that the director’s statement alone, without corroborative evidence, could not be the basis for assessment.
Chennai ITAT rules that S. 194C(6) (obtaining PAN) and S. 194C(7) (filing statement) are independent. A procedural lapse in filing Form 26Q cannot justify a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
The ITAT Delhi ruled that an Assessing Officer could not disregard the Tribunal’s prior order regarding the manual vs. electronic filing of Form 10, deleting the disallowance.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the revenue’s appeal, ruling that interest on External Development Charges (EDC) is a deductible revenue expense, not a penal or capital one.
ITAT Delhi partly allows assessee’s appeal, holding Rs.70.46 lakh addition for Kolkata property wrongly made in wife’s hands; entire investment made and disclosed by husband.
ITAT Chennai held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified as AO has applied his mind and revision u/s. 263 cannot be possible for mere change of opinion. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
