ITAT Delhi resolves Cheil India Pvt. Ltd.’s appeal on CSR expense disallowance under Section 80G. Tribunal observed that CSR expenditures could qualify as donations if paid to approved institutions, distinct from direct CSR project costs
ITAT Delhi quashes penalty imposed on Sudesh Gupta under Section 271(1)(c) as omnibus notice without specifying the charge was invalid
ITAT Bangalore held that interest income received from co-operative society or co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, matter restored to AO to examine the source of interest income.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam condoned 102 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to CIT(A) with an observation that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act justified as no plausible explanation was given by the assessee for non-compliance of notices served by AO.
Since the Revenue has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A), we don’t find any reason to interfere with his order. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
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.
