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.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of revenue expenditure treating it as capital merely on the basis of description of the expenditure without any substantive record is unsustainable.
A discussion on ITAT Ahmedabad’s ruling condoning the late filing of an appeal due to the negligence of the tax practitioner, in the case of Sanjeev Harshadrai Sheth Vs ITO.
In Jayshree Kamleshkumar Patel vs ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad overturned an ex-parte order due to non-compliance with notice service preferences outlined in Form No. 35.
