ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271D of the income Tax Act not leviable as reasonable cause for violation of provisions of section 269SS duly demonstrated.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that draft assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act passed on a non-existent company is null and void.
Kanta Govind Singh Vs ACIT CPC TDS (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee, aged 85 years, purchased property from non-residents joint owners. TDS was deducted u/s 195 at lower rates as the sellers obtained lower tax certificates. Sale consideration was paid on 20.06.19 & TDS was also paid on the same day though assessee could have paid the […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income generated by the assessee cannot be held bogus only based on the modus operandi. To hold income earned by the assessee as bogus, specific evidence has to be brought on record by the Revenue. In absence of any specific finding, assessee cannot be held to be guilty.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when interest free funds are available with the assessee, it can be said that investments are made out of interest free funds and hence disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act not justifiable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that motor vehicles qualify as self-propelled vehicles and accordingly depreciation at the rate of 33.40% available on the same.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that post non-service of notice, revenue failed to carry out its primary responsibility to ascertain whether the company, against which notices were issued, and proceedings under section 148 was contemplated, was existing or not. Accordingly, matter remanded to carry out fresh adjudication.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable as prerequisite laid down in law for reopening of the case beyond four years is not found to be fulfilled.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan taken at higher rate for commercial expediency is admissible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act correctly invoked as AO failed to examine the issue of purchase of land in the light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
