ITAT Ahmedabad held that the AO must record a proper satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim before invoking Rule 8D u/s. 14A. Thus, in absence of such satisfaction, disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) without adjudicating issues on merits, such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of creditors not proved, hence addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained credit duly sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad orders CIT(A) to reconsider the Section 54F exemption claim by Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel after rejecting previous appeal due to non-compliance.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credit, being bogus unsecured loan, and u/s. 69C on account of unexplained expenditure, being bogus interest claimed, unjustified as repayment of loans in subsequent year accepted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that contribution under National Pension System (NPS) belatedly, however, before filing of return is allowable as deduction u/s. 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act as there is no due date prescribed for payment under NPS.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that passing of revisionary order by PCIT u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is liable to be set aside.
Certain expenses related to cost of improvement of land put forward by assessee were disallowed noting lack of proper and sufficient evidence to support claims of cost incurred for improvement of property.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that order of PCIT invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act set aside as conditions necessary for invoking Section 263 of the Act, i.e., the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, are not satisfied.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any incriminating material seized from assessee’s premises is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
