ITAT Pune held that addition toward unexplained expenditure is liable to be deleted since assessee inadvertently mentioned ‘commission expense’ instead of actual ‘construction expenses. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The assessee filed return for AY 2017-18 declaring Nil income after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs.13,48,854/- while claiming business loss at Rs.3,56,511/-. Case was selected for scrutiny.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposable even in case of voluntary disclosure or declaration or surrender per se of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue allowed.
ITAT Pune ruled on multiple appeals in Bharati Vidyapeeths case, addressing issues on exemptions under Sections 11, 13, 10(23C), and validity of Section 153C notices.
AO without going through the terms and conditions of each of the project that had been undertaken by assessee during the year had come to the conclusion that assessee was a works contractor and not a developer.
The disallowance occurred due to an incorrect entry in the ITR, and the matter should be reassessed, taking into account the correct disclosure of the loss.
ITAT Pune invalidates unsigned NFAC order, remanding case for re-adjudication under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case to be heard afresh.
Hon’ble ITAT Pune rules that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed for genuine mistakes or debatable claims in tax assessments.
The Revenue’s action in mulcting the penalty by asking the assessee to prove the reasonable cause [COVID- 19] with documentary evidence capable of suggesting non-application of mind by the tax authorities.
Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
