Paulomi Iyer Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) At the outset, we note that this is second round of litigation before us. The background of case is that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the profession of service provider. During the year under consideration, the assessee provided services of SAP implementation to one of her […]
Since quantum appeal itself is being quashed, penalty levied as against reassessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars has no legs to stand and same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to claim of unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation to be set off against income from other sources as available during the year.
Only information in possession of AO for assuming jurisdiction to reopen case was that of cash deposited in bank account of assessee
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income related to FD interest, interest from customer’s receipts and interest income from business advances is eligible for deduction under section 80IAB of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deprival of deduction u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act merely on the reasoning that deduction was claimed in the revised return or audit report in Form 56F was filed during the assessment proceedings is unjustified.
Kishoresinh Hemantsinh Chudasama Pipali Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Undisputedly, before the ld. CIT(A), none-appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was decided ex parte. I have also gone through the Form no. 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A) and find that the assessee has rightly mentioned that email-id mentioned therein was that of […]
Ishwarbhai Madhavlal Patel-HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the present case, the Karta of HUF having expired in the year 2021 itself when this information was first provided and since then revised Form No. 36 in the name of the legal-heirs or representative of the deceased-assessee is not be filed as provided in Rule 26 […]
Basic fact that assessee is not eligible for filing return of income was not taken into account and therefore, there was no application of mind while recording reasons for reopening.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to the interest income under a bonafide belief.
