ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as denial of claim of deduction u/s 80HH/ 80IA doesn’t tantamount to concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income earned by depositing surplus grants in a particular mode as per the directions of the State Government is also treated as part of the grants and hence it cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
In a recent case, the ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the addition made on protective basis in the assessment of ACIT Vs. Rachna Finlease Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal upheld the findings of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of transactions made by the assessee.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed rectification orders passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, upholding the setting off of business loss against property income and income from other sources.
Uncover the details of the ITAT Ahmedabad ruling in Surendra Ramdhar Yadav vs ITO, where the tribunal condoned a 259-day delay in filing an appeal due to medical treatment. Explore the implications and impact of this case on the legal landscape.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when application of income is more than receipts of year, excess application of income i.e., expenditure in the hands of the assessee can be carried forward to succeeding Year.
An in-depth examination of the recent ITAT Ahmedabad verdict in the DCIT vs. Shiv Build case. The ruling highlights that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can be made for the short deduction of tax, creating a precedent for future cases.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a deceased person is invalid. Accordingly, order passed thereon is also invalide in the eyes of law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no penalty can be imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses incurred for increase of authorized share capital since no penalty can be imposed when there was no willful concealment.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition in case of bogus purchases are restricted only to the extent of profit element involved on such purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) correctly restricted addition to the extent of 10%.
