Analysis of the case DCIT vs. KCJ Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) reveals jurisdictional errors due to the company’s strike off from ROC records.
Sanjeev Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – CIT(A) can admit additional evidence after giving full opportunity to AO to rebut/offer comments in remand proceeding.
ITAT Delhi deletes Rs. 89.7 Lakhs addition u/s 68 IT Act in ACIT vs. Daya Rani. Detailed analysis of taxpayer’s explanation for capital enhancement.
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Delhi’s order regarding capital gains earned from the sale of CCL International shares. ITAT deemed the gains genuine, deleting the addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
Read the detailed analysis of Computer Modelling Group Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) regarding interest leviable from the assessee for short payment of tax due to payer’s TDS default before FY 2012-2013.
Explore the implications of jurisdictional issues in tax assessment with the case of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, assessing the validity of section 143(3) assessments without proper notices under section 143(2).
Detailed analysis of the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Goyal vs ITO, including the reasons for the penalty dismissal.
ITAT observed that the disallowance of expenses by the AO was on an estimate and ad hoc basis due to the absence of supporting evidence, rather than evidence of concealment of income. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT emphasized that disallowance based on the magnitude of expenses or missing vouchers is insufficient to justify a penalty, especially without evidence of mala fide intent.
Learn how issuance of a jurisdictional notice in the name of a non-existing entity led to the quashing of reassessment proceedings by the ITAT Delhi.
Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)
