Merely the parties agreed to not to charge/pay interest on loan will not vitiate the genuineness of such loan transaction unless and until the revenue brought some cogent material on record to prove that such transaction of loan is not genuine.
Provision of Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act does not make any distinction in regard to source of the investment because this Section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by co-operative society from any investment with a co-operative society.
CIT(A) was not right in levying interest under Section 234A of the Act when the return was filed under Section 148 itself and therefore, the interest should be charged from the date of notice under Section 148 of the Act itself and not from the date of return filed under Section 139 or it is due date under Section 139.
ITO Vs Rajesh Kumar Chhanalal Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ahmedabad ITAT upholds CIT(A) order deleting the addition of Rs. 86.75 Cr under Section 69A as Assessee’s unexplained income; Holds that the cash deposited in bank account cannot be treated as unexplained as the Revenue himself in the remand report and on verification accepted that the entire […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards closing cash balance as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 unsustained as cash was generated from agricultural activity and revenue failed to discharge the onus of disproving the said contention of the assessee.
Rupa Mahesh Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) As transpires from the orders of the authorities below, the addition to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in Bombay Stock Exchange of Rs.25,21,525/- and unexplained source of payment of credit card amounting to Rs.3,45,000/- was made in the absence of any details submitted […]
Section 200 of the Act casts a duty on person deducting tax to pay the same within prescribed time to the credit of the Central Government. Section 200A of the Act draws out the procedure for processing of statements of tax deducted at source.
Paulomi Iyer Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) At the outset, we note that this is second round of litigation before us. The background of case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the profession of service provider. During the year under consideration, the assessee provided services of SAP implementation to one of her […]
Since quantum appeal itself is being quashed, penalty levied as against reassessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars has no legs to stand and same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to claim of unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation to be set off against income from other sources as available during the year.
