ITAT Mumbai sets aside CIT(A)’s ex-parte order in Gurpreet Singh Rajput’s case, allowing reassessment after providing the assessee another hearing opportunity.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessee has sufficient amount of interest free fund to make investment yielding exempt income, therefore, disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Assessee contended that there was no violation of provisions of sec.269T since the security deposits were obtained through banking channels and were only adjusted towards the outstanding dues.
ITAT Jaipur ruled on addition of ₹1.75 crore as unexplained credit in ITO Vs Kedia Builders. The tribunal highlighted compliance with Section 68 requirements.
ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of assessee in Poonam Ramesh Sahajwani vs ITO case, applying Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to consider stamp duty value on agreement date.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 36(1)(va) delayed payment of PF & ESIC has to be treated as income of the assessee. Hence, alternate claim of deduction of the same u/s. 37(1) of the Act is not acceptable.
ITAT Chennai held that PCIT cannot term order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely for non-production of Form 3CL for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act for receiving fixed assets from sister concern on free of cost basis unjustified as no benefit is derived from the same. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
An employee should be employed for 300 days or more during the previous year should be applied cumulatively across the year of hiring and the following year, rather than restricting it to the first year.
ITAT Mumbai quashes reassessment against CLE Private Limited, ruling notice issued beyond TOLA’s limitation period is invalid.
