ITAT Surat relied on precedents (Hari Gopal, Marksans Pharma, Boparai P. Ltd.) to hold that ad-hoc or percentage-based additions do not trigger Section 271(1)(c) penalty. Appeal allowed, penalty deleted.
The ITAT deleted Rs. 59.39 lakh added under Section 69A, holding that the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained via cash books and bank statements. The ruling reinforces that documented withdrawals cannot be treated as unexplained income without contrary evidence.
Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Allows Full 54EC Relief Because Investments Were in Two Financial Years; 54EC Deduction Restored as Advance Money Investment Considered Valid; 54F Claim Denied Because Joint Ownership Counts as Second House; Section 54F Exemption Refused Due to Ownership of Multiple Residences; Expense Deduction Rejected Since Firm Interest Cannot […]
ITAT Surat allowed Goverdhan Nathji Pare Bethakji Seva Trust’s appeal, setting aside CIT(E)’s ex parte rejection of its trust registration application. Tribunal condoned a 24-day delay and restored matter to CIT(E) for a fresh order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.
ITAT Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, holding that once substantive additions related to payments made by assessee were upheld by Tribunal and CIT(A) in cases of receiving parties, corresponding protective additions against assessee must be deleted.
ITAT Surat rules company’s capital contribution to a partnership firm for business purposes is not a loan or advance, thus escaping deemed dividend tax u/s 2(22)(e).
Tax treatment of a foreign exchange fluctuation depended entirely on the nature of the underlying asset or liability. Gains or losses on capital items (like a long-term investment or loan) were not typically recognized for tax purposes until the asset was actually sold or the loan was repaid.
ITAT Surat condones delay in appeal against an increased capital gain demand under Sec. 143(1), ruling the delay was justified by the assessee’s pursuit of rectification remedy.
A summary of the Sachin Notified Area vs. PCIT tax case. The ITAT Surat remanded the issue for fresh adjudication, citing a prior ruling in the assessee’s favor.
The ITAT has fixed the fair market value of land at Rs. 60/sq.m. for capital gains calculation and directed the tax authorities to re-examine a taxpayer’s deduction claim under Section 54.
