Explore the outcome of Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel vs DCIT where the ITAT Surat negates penalty under Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(b) when the assessment gets completed under Section 143(3).
A penalty of was levied under section 271FA of Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s subsequent appeal, stating that SFT was filed when e-filing portal was available, lacked supporting evidence and hence did not hold in court.
Explore the recent ITAT Surat ruling on Mukesh Agarwal vs ITO, where no addition was justified without corroborative evidence on a discovered satakat during a third-party survey.
ITAT Surat’s in case of Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya Vs ITO, held that legal illiteracy of a common man is not an excuse for delay in filing appeal
ITAT Surat held that fair market value (FMV) by the registered valuers is determined after taking into account all the relevant factors like size, shape, situation, location, utility, future potentiality, etc. accordingly, the same cannot be ignore.
ITAT Surat held that gift received from HUF cannot be added back to the total income of the assessee being Karta (Manager) of such HUF.
ITAT Surat held that provision of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act as amended vide Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill 2016 which is effective from 01.04.2017 cannot be applied to search conducted prior to the effective date.
ITAT Surat held that addition as unexplained investment in the hands of one of the co-owner unsustainable as department didn’t made proportionate addition in the hands of other co-owners.
Ganesh Ganpat Alim Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act should not be made when repayment of loan is made in the assessment year itself. Facts- During the assessment proceedings, AO got information from investigation wing that M/s Delight Diam P Ltd. and M/s Bafna […]
Return of income so filed was late by one minute. Therefore, deduction claimed by assessee under section 80IA(4) of Act was denied by CPC
