Every deposit in the bank account cannot always be an income. Therefore, condition of deposit of advance tax could not be imposed blindly without considering contention of assessee that his income was below the taxable limit.
ITAT Chandigarh deletes ₹32 lakh addition against Pawan International, ruling cash deposits from opening stock sales cannot be treated as unexplained income.
ITAT Chandigarh reverses AO’s 10% disallowance of property improvement costs, accepting architect’s valuation for accurate capital gains calculation.
Assessee was also expected to be vigilante in so far as assessment proceedings were concerned. Most of the time assessee went in slow motion and avoid proceedings by not responding to notice(s) of Department, not appearing before AO, not following up with CA/Advocates.
ITAT Chandigarh held that no incriminating material found during course of search and assessment is completed during date of search hence addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
During the assessment proceedings, AO provided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the Assessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed without compliance with mandatory requirement of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, order passed u/s. 144 r/w 147 set aside.
ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue since the tax effect involved in the same is less than prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs in terms of the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024.
ITAT Chandigarh sets aside ₹29.5 lakh addition against Bachan Kaur, allowing a fresh hearing due to her illness and husband’s death.
Revision order was remanded back for re-examination of assessee qualification as venture capital as where the amount had been received from the Venture Capitalists, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
