Since, appellant company is a sick industrial company for impugned assessment year, any profit derived from said industrial companies can be deducted while computing book profit.
ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Discover how Chennai ITAT’s verdict affects assessments. Learn how a typographical error in Form 3CD impacts additions to an assessee’s income.
Chennai ITAT’s ruling on Ramasubramaniam Sridhar Paul Vs ITO clarifies Sec.54F: no mandate on specific money usage for new investments under Capital Gain Account Scheme.
Section 271D penalty proceeding cannot be initiated if AO fail to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty penalty proceeding in respect of violation of provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Chennai ITAT ruled that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 153C of the Income Tax Act for the subject assessment year was barred by limitation and void ab initio
Read the full text of the order from ITAT Chennai dismissing the appeal due to unexplained 726-day delay. Detailed analysis and implications provided.
Read the detailed analysis of Union Bank of India’s case vs ITO where ITAT Chennai grants deduction under Section 80P for dividends from cooperative bank shares.
ITAT Chennai held that rejection of application in Form No. 10AB for seeking approval u/s. 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act by treating it as time barred under gist that CBDT circular no. 22/2022 dated 01.11.2022 didn’t provide extension of time limit is unjustified.
Sri Jeyamkonda Choleeswara Soundaranayaki Amman Kumbhabisheka Malar Kyushu vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) case: Trust’s error in applying for registration under the Income Tax Act leads to ITAT’s directive for reevaluation.
