Ajit Kumar Khan Vs DCIT case at ITAT Ranchi clarifies that late filing fees for GST returns cannot be added summarily through intimation under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Explore the ITAT Ranchi ruling on penalty imposition for non-audit of books, analyzing the distinction between maintenance and audit requirements under Sections 44AA and 44AB of the Income Tax Act.
Mukkamala Srihari Rao Vs ACIT (ITAT Ranchi) Whether the sale consideration received by a person from sale of capital asset if applied in the name of his wife or son for purchasing/constructing residential house whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s. 54F or 54 of the Act?. From going through the decision(s) relied on by […]
DCIT Vs Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd (ITAT Ranchi) The undisputed facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of procurement and supply of IMFL, FMFL as well as country made liquor and other similar products and as per Government mandate the assessee is authorized to charge 5% on MRP on the wholesales […]
Ashutosh Jha (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) Where assessee purchased a property and made part payment of sale consideration by cheque on very next day of execution of purchase agreement and registry was done after a year, since such part payment made by cheque on very next day of execution of agreement was towards fulfilment […]
Whether A.O. is right in dismissing the claim of the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer and they were constructed alongwith saleable flats?
whether AO is correct in disallowing the exemption u/s 54F on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer and they were constructed alongwith saleable flats?
Various additions/disallowances made by AO were clearly beyond the scope of authority vested under s.153A owing to absence of any incriminating material or evidence deduced as a result of search in so far as completed assessments were concerned and the same was not permissible in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the expenses incurred against the retention money or unrealised income is allowed under mercantile system of accounting?
Bajrang Lal Naredi Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) In the instant appeal, the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2013 and applicable to AY 2014-15 in question. On a perusal of pre-amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, we gather that where an individual or HUF receives from any […]
