Delve into the case of Santi Kumar Oswal Vs ACIT where ITAT Kolkata ruled that no disallowance can be made for GST paid before the due date of filing ROI, emphasizing fair application of the Income Tax Act.
Gain in-depth insights into the ITAT Kolkata’s landmark ruling on residential property deductions under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. Learn how ownership of more than one house impacts tax deductions.
Read the analysis of the ITAT Kolkata order in the case of Asha Vijay Vs ITO regarding the inapplicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to transfers that took place before the accounting year 2014-15. Learn how the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
An in-depth analysis of the ITAT Kolkata case where an auditor’s error resulted in incorrect disallowance sum under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT has directed a re-adjudication of the case.
Addition on account of unexplained investments under section 69 could not be made as whatever deposits were made were either out of the past savings or from the loans taken from relatives.
The ITAT Kolkata recently deleted an addition made on interest receipt by the CIT(A) in the case of Guruji Mercantile Pvt. Limited Vs ITO, citing lack of jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, the condonation of delay was allowed for 902 days by placing its reliance over the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was observed that Income-tax law is a complex subject and meeting its compliance requirements is dependent on services by experts of the subject matter. Accordingly the delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed on merits.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition of advances received by the company as deemed dividend in terms of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as advances are received from the concerns purely as business transaction.
Explore the ruling in the case of Kartick Das Bairagya Vs ITO at ITAT Kolkata, which clarifies the conditions for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that in respect of any adjustment proposed to be made u/s 143(1)(a), a prior intimation is required to be served on the assesse. Failure to issue such prior intimation to the assessee before making an adjustment by way of disallowing the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is unjustified.
