ITAT Chennai held that addition as unexplained investment for quantity of jewellery within the permissible limits as per CBDT instruction no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 is unsustainable.
Velankanni Constructions Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) The assessee being resident firm is stated to be engaged in civil construction. The assessee could not produce bills or voucher for blue metal jelly purchase, brick purchase and sand purchase. The reasons adduced were that the assessee undertook work at remote places and was dependent on local supplies. […]
ITAT Chennai held that for the purpose of computing period of holding, date of allotment should be considered, but not the final sale deed executed for conveying the title and interest in the property.
DCIT Vs K. Dhandapani and Co. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) ITAT Chennai held that assessee rightly proved that the land sold is agricultural land and agricultural activity was carried out on the same. Hence, the agricultural land is not assessable to capital gains. Facts- The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is as regards to […]
ITAT Chennai held that if TDS is deducted by applying wrong provisions or at lower rates, the sum paid cannot be disallowed attracting provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
Sathyanarayanan Radhika Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT noted that the loan amount of Rs. 1.25 Crores was taken in previous year from Shri R. Sathyanarayanan and the balance amount of Rs. 17,00,690/- was interest on the loan amount and this cannot be treated as unexplained and moreover, there is no failure of the provisions of […]
ITAT Chennai held that TDS credit of the earlier financial years is available as income relating to said TDS has been offered to tax for the impugned assessment years on the basis of mercantile system of accounting.
ITAT Chennai held that return of income has to be filed as per section 139 of the Income Tax Act for claiming benefit under section 10A. Exemption under section 10A is not available in case the return is filed belatedly.
R. Yuvaraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the source of the additional amount of ₹.52 lakhs found deposited in his savings bank account with Andhra Bank, Medavakkam. Since the assessee has not furnished any evidence for having received money from the purchaser Shri Parthasarathy, […]
ITAT Chennai held that assessee already admitted the fact of not disclosing four properties in the books of accounts and thereafter couldn’t explain the source of the purchase of four properties. Claiming that the same is gift from her husband is just an afterthought. Accordingly, additions sustainable.
