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.
Chennai ITAT ruled that receiving a huge sale consideration in cash violates Sec 269SS, warranting penalty under Sec 271D. Case analysis of Nammalvar Lingusamy Vs ACIT.
Chennai ITAT ruling in Nirmala Venkatapathy Vs ITO case emphasizes no DVO reference if taxpayer’s asset value exceeds fair market value, providing detailed analysis and implications.
