ITAT Chennai held that once the assessee has discharged its primary onus of fulfilling the three ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the further onus was on revenue to make further enquiry. However, since the onus lying on the revenue was not discharged, addition u/s 68 couldn’t be sustained.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction of TDS vis-à-vis amortization of discount on debentures needs fresh adjudication in the light of additional evidences filed by the revenue. Accordingly, matter restore back.
ITAT Chennai held that one delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF & ESI covered by the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as due date was a national holiday. Disallowance u/s u/s.36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for such delay unjustified.
Explore ITAT Chennai’s recent ruling in MRS Jewellery Vs DCIT, where they partly upheld the AO’s assessment of excess stock, creating a significant impact on the taxation of jewellery businesses.
The ITAT Chennai ordered for the re-adjudication of capital gain assessment in the case of P. Selvamani Ranjithan vs ITO, emphasizing the responsibility of the assessee to prove non-accrual of capital gains.
Read the analysis of the case between K. S. Anbuselvan and ITO at ITAT Chennai. The court allows the appeals for re-adjudication of capital gains and deductions related to the sale of a property, following a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation
The CESTAT Chennai rules in favor of Nitco Limited in a dispute over the delayed delivery of a SAD refund sanction order by the Commissioner of Customs. The case now returns to the first appellate authority for review.
Explore the recent case ruling by ITAT Chennai where the verdict was overturned due to a pending delay condonation application, highlighting the importance of due process in tax disputes.
A landmark decision by ITAT Chennai reinforces the validity of capital gain deductions under Section 54, even when flat possession is delayed. Explore the key aspects and implications of the Anil Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake Vs ACIT case.
Baskaran, the Karta of the HUF, submitted that his prolonged illness prevented him from managing the day-to-day activities of the business, causing the delay in filing the appeal. Despite this, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the delay wasn’t sufficiently justified.
