ITAT Chennai held that AO duly verified the subject matter in re-assessment proceedings and concluded that LTCG declared by the assessee is genuine. Accordingly, setting aside the assessment order invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 on the same subject matter unjustified.
ITAT Chennai held that as computer and robotix kit is totally different, depreciation @15% and not @60% available on Robotix kits.
ITAT Chennai held that amount paid by company on behalf of shareholder which has been subsequently re-paid by the shareholder or his family members either on the same day or within a short period cannot be considered as loan or advance which can be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
ITAT Chennai held that AO is free to examine the method through which the share price is determined. However, AO doesnot have power to change the method from discounted cash flow (DCF) as followed by assessee to Net Asset Value (NAV).
ITAT upheld additions towards cash seized during search proceedings as unexplained money, under Section 69A when assessee could not establish source for amount found.
ITAT held that profit from sale of property purchased to exploit commercially and sold as a stock in trade cannot be assessed to tax under the head capital gain and shall be assessed under the head, profit and gains of business or profession;
ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available towards purchase of undivided share of land.
ITAT Chennai held that profit on transfer of flats to partners is computable in the hands of firm, however, benefit of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act duly available even on transfer of flats to the partners by way of MOU.
ITAT Chennai held that as cash deposited by assessee received from petty shop owners on account of sale of its product during demonetization period was not examined by AO during assessment. Accordingly, PCIT rightly passed revision order u/s 263 directing AO to carry out necessary verification.
ITAT Chennai held that as per assigning reasons for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB is venial technical breach and accordingly penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
