ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable since assessee had explained the source of investment in FDs as being from his FD/OD account.
ITAT Mumbai rules no addition can be made for differences between GST returns and ITR if reconciled. Assessee followed project completion method for accounting.
Manish Manohardas Asrani Vs ITO Int Tax Ward (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled in favor of the assessee, Manish Manohardas Asrani, quashing a penalty of ₹44,90,048 levied under Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge—whether it pertained […]
ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
The appellant are that the assessee being a public charitable Trust engaged in running an educational institution in the name of Batanagar Institute of Engineering, management and Science.
AO observed that there was substantial undisclosed income, as the assessee admitted to unaccounted business income amounting to Rs.3,50,04,000/- during the search proceedings but did not file a return for the assessment year 2014-15.
ITAT Delhi held that grant-in-aid incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is allowable as deduction. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and addition of the same by AO is liable to be deleted.
When the person from whom the amount was borrowed has written off the amount in his accounts, the liability ceased to exist. As there was cessation of liability, the same cannot be part of sundry creditors of the assessee.
The assessee filed its original return of income which was taken for scrutiny assessment and regular assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29-12-2011.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 on the issue which is already dealt in the original assessment void ab initio and bad in law since no new fresh material was pointed out at the time of reopening of assessment.
