In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.
ITAT Hyderabad’s decision on Shridhar Madhav Diwan vs DCIT case emphasizes re-examination of denied foreign tax credit due to late Form No. 67, aligning with DTAA provisions and Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Hyderabad order, wherein Mohammed Rahimuddin successfully appeals the penalty u/s 271A due to estimation-based income addition.
In Pavuluri Sylendra Nellore Vs ITO case, ITAT Hyderabad confirms addition under section 69C due to unexplained source of credit card payment.
Delhi High Court has directed readjudication in the case of Praveen Bansal Vs ITO, stating that the assessment order under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is not valid if the escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs.
ITAT Hyderabad case Narasimha Rao Venkata Lakshmi Nandury Vs ITO, emphasizing that a meritorious case should not be dismissed when proper documents are produced
In the case of Srimathi Pichara Vs ITO, ITAT Hyderabad set aside ex-parte addition of cash deposits made during demonetization period under Section 69A of Income Tax Act. ITAT directed Assessing Officer to readjudicate the matter after providing an opportunity to assessee to produce relevant documents for fact verification
ITAT Hyderabad held that as addition was not made voluntary but was made only after the search and incriminating evidences found during the search, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act towards such addition is sustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessee neither before AO nor before CIT(A) could produce any evidence to support his astronomical agricultural income. Accordingly, in absence of evidence, addition sustained.
ITAT Hyderabad held that CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition as nature of entries found in the cash book which were not recorded in the day book was not considered.
