Deduction claimed by assessee in return of income which was directly relatable to the insurance activities, as it did not fall under section 80P(2) i.e., Insurance activities.
Explore the ITAT Hyderabad’s decision in the Kancherla Medical Services vs. DCIT case, where the delay condonation appeal was dismissed due to public interest.
ITAT Hyderabad held that claim of deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act not available as the flats sold are not hold for a minimum period of 3 years.
ITAT Hyderabad directed CIT (A) NFAC to grant the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate its case with a cost of Rs. 3,000 imposed for ignoring notices.
In the Subba Raju Chekuri Vs. ITO case, ITAT Hyderabad remands matter due to the failure of the assessee to provide evidence for Section 54F deduction claim.
Learn how non-acquaintance with new e-mail notice procedures led to the denial of opportunity to the assessee in the Venugopal Reddy Yeravally vs. ITO case, as ITAT Hyderabad sets aside the ex-parte order.
ITAT Hyderabad held that receipt of more than Rs. 20,000 by way of cash without any reasonable cause is in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D duly imposed.
In a case involving Smt. Madhuvalli Lakamraju vs. ADIT, ITAT Hyderabad deletes the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to lack of source for cash deposits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to an undertaking developing and building housing projects. The same is not applicable to a partner in a joint venture/partnership firm.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest on trade receivables u/s. 92B(1) of the Income Tax Act could be determined by applying SBI short-term deposit rates.
