ITAT Indore held that the deeming fiction created in section 50C cannot be extended to the provision of section 69 or 69B or any other of the Act in the case of purchaser to make the purchaser liable for tax.
JCIT vs Amandeep Singh Bhatia: ITAT Indore dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 2,48,02,084/- addition as income from other sources. Detailed analysis provided.
ITAT Indore held that non-deduction of TDS due to genuine and bona fide belief is reasonable cause under section 273B and accordingly penalty u/s 271C not imposable.
ITAT Jaipur held that being a debatable issue there was a reasonable cause for non-deduction of TDS on specified transactions and accordingly penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ACIT Vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank (ITAT Indore) Provision for Standard Assets Allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) of Income Tax Act, 1961
DCIT Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Verma (ITAT Indore) Sections 68,69,69A,69B,69C and 69D may be called as Section 68 & 69 Family. However, they differ in as far as Burden of Proof is concerned. In sec 68, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under […]
Dhanwan Leasing and Finance Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Section 68 of the Act provides that where any sum is found to be credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in […]
M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) ITAT held that it was unable to verify certain facts relevant to the issue being agitated, viz. (i) whether and to what extent the buildings/godowns are being used for the activities eligible for 80P deduction or other activities as being claimed before us; and (ii) […]
ITAT Indore held that the expenditure incurred for obtaining loan is a revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the fee paid for renewal of cash-credit is a revenue expenditure.
ITAT Indore held that when one possible view has been taken by AO the same cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act based on mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
