In Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs ITO (ITAT Pune), ITAT rules that loan received from State Government is not subject to S.43B(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Full text analysis here.
In the case of Cavalcade Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITAT mandates re-evaluation of advances against flat bookings, challenging revenue recognition methods.
Read the detailed analysis of Hiral Exports vs ITO case where ITAT Mumbai deletes Rs.40,82,500 addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to failure to rebut evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of the agreement by no stretch of imagination could be the date of sale of the shares by the assessee. As date of contract of sale would be date of fulfilment of conditions specified in share purchase agreement, date of contract will be treated as date of transfer.
In a case between Konkan Education Society Sevak Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd and ITO, ITAT Pune rules interest & dividend from cooperative investment deductible under Income Tax Act.
In Mani Sundaram Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai), cash loans from relatives, later treated as gifts, didn’t incur penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition in case of bogus purchases should be limited to the extent of G.P. rate on purchases. Accordingly, matter remanded with direction to reduce addition only to the extent of profit margin involved in such purchases.
In the case of Aashish Luthra vs. ITO, ITAT Mumbai deletes cash deposit addition after establishing the source as property sale advance received by the father.
Explore the case of Shantabai Jasraj Lodha challenging additions made by CIT(A) – NFAC regarding a Rs.20 lakhs deposit during demonetization. Analysis reveals discrepancies and remand for further verification.
Explore the ITAT Delhi ruling on the eligibility of management service fees paid to non-resident AEs under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in the case of Iris Worldwide Integrated Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT.
