In the case of Eapen George Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore), the Tribunal examined the non-resident’s right to be heard during reassessment proceedings and the rejection of additional evidence.
Detailed analysis of the ITAT Jaipur decision in Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs ACIT on unexplained investments, Section 263 jurisdiction, and procedural lapses.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT upheld the jurisdiction u/s 263 exercised by PCIT, is right as twin condition of section 263 are fulfilled.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside CIT(E)’s rejection of a trust’s 12A and 80G registration applications due to incomplete documents, restoring the case for reconsideration.
Tribunal ruled that the deduction was valid under Section 43B, as the payments were made in the relevant assessment year after the disputes were settled through the amnesty schemes.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that entire assessments has been restored to the file of CIT(A) for de novo consideration since assessee was found to be absolutely non-cooperative and took every step to thwart/stonewall the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Ahmedabad affirms CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹12.92 crore tax addition under Section 40A(3), relying on past gross profit rates and valid agricultural purchases.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT allowed appeal of the assessee by holding that assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) that all its income is from members.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act without referring valuations of property to DVO as per the provisions of sec-50C of the Income Tax Act is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Before ITAT it was submitted by assessee that both the lower authorities have erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. Revenue also admitted that orders of lower authorities were ex-parte.
