ITAT Indore held that assessment done after considering replies/ submissions of the assessee cannot be said to be faulty. AO has taken a plausible view after considering replies/ submissions and hence revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act not warranted.
Indore ITAT clarifies that a firm can’t deny land ownership if bought through directors. Read the detailed analysis of Bagora Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT case.
Explore the detailed analysis of Kesar Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director of Income Tax (ITAT Indore) case, focusing on penalty levied under section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Sold agricultural land? Re-invest the proceeds in new land within 2 years to claim tax exemption under Section 54B. Even if the new land is registered in your son’s name, you may still qualify. Learn the details and avoid common mistakes with this informative guide.
Mere charging a nominal amount for smooth functioning of educational institution and trust could not called to be a part of commercial activity, and therefore, CIT(E) was directed to grant registration u/s 12AB to assessee.
ITAT Indore held that addition u/s. 68 on account of bogus long term capital gains unsustainable as the alleged transaction is not found recorded in the books of accounts including the Dmat account of the assessee. Hence, addition on the basis of assumption unsustainable.
ITAT Indore held that the credit of the tax collected at source should be given to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law, irrespective of the person in whose hands the TDS/TCS certificate has been issued at first place.
In ACIT Vs Sanjay Kumath case, ITAT Indore ruled on Section 54F deduction eligibility based on period of holding of a flat from date of allotment letter. Learn about detailed analysis and conclusion of this case.
Learn about ITAT Indore case involving absence of a DIN in an order passed u/s 154. Discover arguments, observations, and outcome in this detailed analysis.
ITAT Indore held that deduction of cost of land with expenses for exploitation on land duly allowable from the sale consideration before charging tax on the same.
