Assessee had given reasons that as per the previous counsel, late Shri R.R. Jain (C.A.) had given advice no separate appeal against the order passed u/s 263 was filed before ITAT.
The stand of the assessee was that it was not necessary that loss of one industrial undertaking should necessarily be adjusted against the profit of another eligible industrial undertaking.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition of entire amount as unaccounted sales not justified since undisclosed income is required to be computed on the basis of principle of real income. Accordingly, addition of only net profit of such receipt confirmed.
ITAT Mumbai dismisses the appeal of Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for AY 2017-18.
ITAT Mumbai rules on ACIT vs Rohit Krishna, dismissing penalties under Section 43 of the Black Money Act for non-reporting of foreign assets in tax returns.
“ITAT Jodhpur rules Bitcoin gains as long-term capital gains (LTCG) and allows Section 54F deduction for AY 2021-22. Read the detailed judgment highlights.”
ITAT Delhi held that CIT(A) wrongly deleted addition made by AO towards one fifth of the expenses since assessee failed to produce documentary evidences of the expenses. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 for non-compliance before CIT(A) and held that the assessee can’t simply escape by placing the blame on the Tax Consultant. Thus, matter restored back to the file of AO.
ITAT Delhi held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution and confirmed the order of the AO as no submissions were made on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, matter restored to CIT(A).
The assessment order was framed in which the AO made certain additions in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,477/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
