The Tribunal ruled that an addition of Rs. 25 lakh was unjustified as the genuineness of a cash deposit from agricultural land sale was established, despite minor errors in affidavit.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is taxable under ‘Income from Other Sources’ per Sections 56(2)(viii) and 145B(1). The case clarifies post-amendment tax treatment of such interest.
Chander Shekher Saini Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Facts: The assessee, Shri Chander Shekher Saini, is a retired employee who served initially with the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) and, pursuant to restructuring, with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), a company wholly owned by the Government of Punjab. It is not in dispute that the […]
The ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a co-purchaser of property is not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194-IA if their individual share is below ₹50 lakh, even if total consideration exceeds the limit. The Tribunal quashed both AO and CIT(A) orders.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that CAD software with a short lifecycle and frequent upgrades qualifies as revenue expenditure, enabling full Section 80IC deduction. AO and CIT(A) orders were set aside.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2016-17.
ITAT allowed assessee’s appeal against Section 68 addition, stressing that AO must evaluate annual business activity, stock, and legitimate cash sales. This decision safeguards traders during exceptional periods like demonetization.
ITAT Chandigarh allowed a delayed appeal of 457 days, holding that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay and the Limitation Act provisions applied. Appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
ITAT Chandigarh condoned an 87-day delay in filing an appeal where the assessee acted on genuine advice about CPC TDS rectification, emphasizing substantial justice over technical dismissal.
ITAT Chandigarh held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO violated statutory provisions, quashing the assessment for AY 2018-19.
