Since assessee could not explain how the expenses which were claimed by assessee in the closing stock was allowable i.e., provision in regard to freight expenses payable and labour charges payable.
ITAT Chennai held that subsidy received from Government of India under the Focus Market Scheme is Revenue in nature. The same cannot be at any stretch of imagination considered as capital in nature.
In the Varadaraja Textiles case, ITAT Chennai ruled that depreciation is allowed for a textile spinning unit acquired through an auction sale, disputing the nil cost assessment.
ITAT Chennai’s ruling in the case of Fathima Jewellers vs. DCIT clarifies that excess gold jewellery stock found during a survey isn’t unexplained investment under IT Act.
In an income tax penalty case, ITAT Chennai dismisses the appeal, upholding that advances received by Dr. M.N. Kumaresan constitute gifts and are exempt from penalty under section 271D.
Nayagi Fireworks Ltd. vs. ACIT case, where cash deposits of Rs. 99.50 Lacs were disputed and ITAT provides an opportunity to substantiate source.
The ITAT Chennai rules that an assessment order passed without proper examination of evidence can be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
ITAT Chennai’s ruling in Smt. Nagappan Suganthi Vs ACIT. Non-consideration of evidence on deduction claim u/s 54B and capital gains exemption on sale of agricultural land. Matter remanded to AO.
In a crucial ruling, ITAT Chennai allows Section 54F deduction for a new residential property purchase, clarifying tax implications. Learn more in this detailed analysis.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
