ITAT Ahmedabad held that ex-parte dismissal of appeal on account of non-appearance by CIT(A) without discussing the merits of the case is unsustainable in law. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income and miscellaneous income earned by the assessee are directly related to the business of the assessee and assessable as business income only and not as income from other sources.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 326 days in filing quantum appeal and delay of 1 day in filing penalty appeal as assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in case of two contrary decision by non-jurisdictional High Courts, decision favourable to the assessee shall apply. Thus, order of CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act upheld.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 269D and 269E of the Income Tax Act without clear finding along with authentic evidence that provisions of section 269SS and 269T are violated is unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed exempt income. Thus, disallowance u/s. 14A restricted to the extent of exempt income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on account of interest income earned on fixed deposits from Banks and rental income earned by the Society are eligible to set off of maintenance expenses. Thus, addition deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as cash deposits during demonetization period duly recorded in books of account and source of cash deposits duly maintained.
Assessee, an individual, had deposited cash in his bank account. During assessment, AO observed that assessee had entered into share transactions and earned income from commodities through Multi Commodity Exchange.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
