ITAT in Piyushbhai Mangalbhai Patel Vs ITO has deleted the addition of Rs. 12,70,000/- observing that personal savings of government employees could not be suspected for several years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that clause (k) of Rule 6DD specifies that where payment for expenses are made by a person to an agent who is required to make payment in cash on behalf of such person, then rigours of section 40A(3) are not applicable.
It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
ACIT (Intl. Taxn) Vs Allscripts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is pertinent to note that Section 201(3) specifies the time limit in respect of TDS for residents only. The CIT(A) observed that the order dated 25.03.2019 is beyond four years in light of Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in case of NHK Japan Broadcasting […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that undisclosed income declared during the course of search is treated as gross income as genuineness of expenditure claimed against the same is not doubted by AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee has produced many evidences to provide genuineness of the transactions and hence addition confirmed by CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the Assessing Officer is required to pass the assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act and hence any order passed belatedly is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that there was delay in filing statement in Form 24Q/ 26Q due to heavy loss incurred by assessee. However, the same was filed before issuance of show cause notice and late payment of TDS was done along with interest. Hence, it shows that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for late filing of TDS return and hence penalty not leviable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once similar Long Term Capital Gain offered and exemption claimed by the co-owner is already accepted by the revenue, another co-owner (assessee) entitled for similar relief.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the source and genuineness of receipt of shares from brother in USA is proved, addition of the same is unsustainable in terms of explanation 2 to section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Also, there is no need for any ‘occasion’ for receipt of such gift from the brother.
