Kolkata Bench of ITAT ruled in ACIT Vs Pujita Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. that Section 68 of IT Act is applicable when credit is received in the relevant year not for earlier years.
ITAT Delhi rules that Section 43B does not apply to unclaimed service tax liabilities, partially allowing the appeals of Sircar Securities for AY 2017-18 and 2019-20.
ITAT Kolkata held that in course of reassessment, AO concludes that no additions or modifications are warranted under these heads, it would not be entitled to make any additions in respect of other items forming part of original return.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks is allowable as deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay in the completion of construction of the house will not be a bar to the assessee for claiming the exemption provided u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction granted.
ITAT Surat held that each and every addition cannot be a basis for levying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. There has to be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealed income for levy of penalty.
ITAT Bangalore held that once the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed differs from the stamp value adopted by the officer, AO has to adopt the procedures contemplated u/s. 50C of the Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee satisfactorily explained non-production of documents before lower authorities. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed is set aside and matter is remanded back to AO for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that there is no relation of disallowance u/s. 14A while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB. Thus, lower authorities were not correct in adding notional expenditure as computed u/s. 14A and increasing the book profit by that sum u/s. 115JB.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 274 r.w.s.270A of the Act was not a valid notice for the reason that the AO did not specify the satisfaction as to whether assessee had either ‘under reported the income or ‘misreported the income’.
