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
Marvelore Mining & Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Sec. 41(1) can’t be invoked for liability against purchase of defective machinery that was never put to use: Marvelore Mining & Allied Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO – [2023] (Surat-Trib.) Assessee was a private limited company. It was engaged in the business of Calcium […]
ITAT Surat held that penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act not leviable merely because the assesse couldn’t make compliance due to some bonafide reasons.
ITAT Surat held that issues raised by PCIT in his order u/s 263 are already examined by AO and AO passed the assessment order after calling for all the details and considering the reply/ documents. Accordingly, assessment order passed after due application of mind cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Surat held that AO already examined the issue and took a plausible view that addition should not be made. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable as order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Surat held that bill and vouchers of the expenditure claimed by the assessee was loss on account of floods. The explanation of expenses by way of copy of accounts, names and addresses, details TDS deducted and payments by crossed account payee cheques acceptable.
