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.
Explore the case of Daechang Seat Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT at ITAT Chennai, involving a ‘conflict of interest’ issue. Learn about legal principles, professional conduct, and how it impacts income-tax proceedings
Learn why ITAT Chennai deleted the penalty in the case of S. A. Poultry Farms vs. ITO for failure to upload the income tax return electronically. Detailed analysis provided.
Explore case of V.R. Usha Vs ITO, where Section 54F exemption was denied despite partial property ownership, and how it sets a precedent for similar cases.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act being issued mechanically by AO without going through the original assessment records and without verification of documents on records is unsustainable in law.
