ITAT Chennai has ruled that 5% tolerance limit under Section 56(2)(x) is retrospective. ITAT also clarified that stamp duty and registration fees are not deductible from the property’s consideration.
Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Mere Loose Notings Without Corroboration Cannot Justify Unaccounted Income- ITAT Chennai Deletes Additions on “MD Sheet” Chennai ITAT delivered a consolidated order in six appeals filed by a leading South Indian jewellery retailer with nearly sixty showrooms, against assessments framed for AYs 2016-17 to 2021-22. The assessments […]
AO was directed to consider the original return while deciding the case involving disallowance of excess deductions and house property loss claimed in revised returns for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 as the revised return had been filed by the assessee based on the wrong guidance of the tax advisors and had been brought to the notice of the AO.
The ITAT Chennai has upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits for Sucram Pharmaceuticals, citing a lack of proof for alleged debt recoveries and scrap sales.
Chennai ITAT ruled that the Taxation and Other Laws Act (TOLA) does not extend the deadline for assessments, citing judicial precedents. The assessment order was held to be time-barred.
ITAT Chennai held that arm’s length price of interest paid on Fully Compulsory Convertible Debentures [FCCDs] issued in Indian denominated currency is to be determined by adopting average SBI Prime Lending Rate [PLR].
The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. During demonetization period assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in her bank account on 16.11.2016.
ITAT Chennai held that passing of an order in the name of dead/ deceased person is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, revisionary order passed by PCIT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Chennai strikes down a penalty under Section 271D, ruling that a fabricated, unregistered sale agreement and the lack of proof of cash receipt failed to substantiate the tax department’s claim.
Tribunal rules reassessment notice by Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 invalid under Faceless Assessment Scheme; all proceedings quashed.
