In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
Briya Enterprise Ltd. successfully had delays in filing appeals condoned after ITAT held that notices sent to outdated email IDs and old Authorized Representatives justified the delay. Appeals were restored to CIT(A) for fresh decisions on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, ruled in favor of Sattavis Kadva Patidar Pragati Mandal, holding that a charitable trust with a small number of religious objects can still receive an 80G exemption.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under Section 270A cannot be automatically imposed for an addition made under the deemed provisions of Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal quashed a penalty on a taxpayer who purchased property below stamp duty value, stating such additions do not constitute under-reporting of income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming the deletion of additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has deleted a ₹55 lakh addition made under the “accommodation entry” theory, ruling that the repayment of loans through banking channels negated any benefit to the assessee, thereby making the addition and the reassessment legally unsustainable.
Tribunal held that technical issues in filing Form 56F cannot bar deduction under Section 10AA. Meghmani LLP’s Rs. 4.82 crore claim allowed as form submission was directory, not mandatory.
In a case concerning a real estate transaction, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, held that an assessment under Section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found from the assessee.
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed a PCIT order, ruling that revisional power cannot be invoked for mere verification, and a specific error must be proven to show prejudice to revenue.
ITAT clarified that education and camps on Jain principles cannot be treated as wholly religious. Registration u/s 80G can only be denied if religious expenditure exceeds the statutory 5% threshold.
