Satpal Singh Sandhu Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) In absence of Sec. 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner, i.e debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a), would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable intimations being issued, leading to chaos
ITAT Raipur held that delayed deposit of employees share of contribution towards ESI/PF for A.Y. 2018-19 allowed as deduction.
ITAT Raipur restored the matter back to the file of AO in case of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act as the CA certificate submitted was not as per the prescribed form i.e. Form 26A. Post submission of CA certificate in prescribed form, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) will be vacated.
Dive into an income tax appeal against Commissioner’s order. Explore discrepancies, disputed additions, and ITAT Raipur’s direction for reexamination.
ITAT directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter, taking into account the written submission filed by the assessee during e-proceedings. The ITAT emphasized the importance of affording the assessee a fair opportunity to substantiate its claims with supporting evidence.
ITAT Raipur held that ad-hoc disallowance of expenditure without specifying expenditure which was either not incurred for the purpose of business or was not substantiated by documentary evidence/material is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Raipur held that interest income earned is not equal to the percentage of interest expenditure incurred cannot be reason for disqualifying expenditure within the provision of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Raipur held that addition on account of discount allowed to sister concern unsustainable as assessee duly placed on record documentary evidence to substantiate the factum of having sold low-quality sponge iron to its sister concern. Accordingly, rejection of discount merely on the basis of doubts and suspicion unjustified.
ITAT Raipur held that revisionary proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or not maintainable when the assessee have not responded and remain non-compliant in explaining his case before the PCIT.
Vakrangee Foundation faces a penalty for non-compliance with tax audit provisions under Section 44AB. ITAT rules that Section 2(15) does not exempt charitable institutions.
