A detailed analysis of the ITAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in Bhutakia Bhimasar Vs PCIT, where it was held that a charitable organization should not lose tax exemption benefits due to technical lapses.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that making of incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
In Nisarahmed Abdulsattar Vs. ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad quashes the Assessment Order for failure to collect TCS on the sale of metal scrap before the limitation period. Read the full order here.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of exemption under Section 11(1)(a) and 11(2) of the Income Tax Act is not available to “deemed income” under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed addition on account of bogus long term capital gains from transaction in penny stock observing that mere filing documentary evidences did not discharge onus cast on the assessee to prove genuineness of the transaction.
ITAT Ahmedabad sustained the addition on account of trading in penny stock of shell company as assessee failed to attain personal hearing inspite of various occasion.
In Sunrise Broking P. Ltd. Vs ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad abolishes penalty over additions made to interest on income tax refund, recognizing no concealment or inaccuracy in the income particulars.
The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of Shree Swaminarayan Bhagwan, a religious trust, exempting a gold donation from tax under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The gold donation was utilized for the creation of an art gallery, thereby qualifying as corpus donation.
Learn about the significant ruling of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Ankit Ashok Savla Vs ITO regarding the non-disallowance of interest expenses under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Pr.CIT’s view that entire cash deposits during demonetization is to be treated as unexplained, is contrary to the facts on record, as assessee has demonstrated the factum of huge turnover prior to and post demonetization. Accordingly, Pr.CIT’s finding of error in AO’s order is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and accordingly revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable.
