The ITAT Pune bench has deleted an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that a cooperative credit society’s deposits of old currency during demonetization, received from its members, cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, dismissed the Income Tax Officer’s appeal against Ambika Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha, affirming that cash deposits received during the demonetization period were not unexplained cash credits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune has ruled that a validly approved gratuity fund’s income exemption under Section 10(25)(iv) cannot be denied due to a technical error, such as quoting a wrong section in the income tax return (ITR) or the non-filing of Form 10B.
The ITAT Pune bench partially allows the appeal of Avin Gopal Chotiya, upholding the disallowance of excess HRA claimed due to a shared rent agreement but deleting additions.
ITAT Pune cancels a ₹40,000 penalty on a co-operative society, citing a reasonable cause for non-compliance, including PAN issues and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune has condoned a 76-day delay in an appeal filed by Avinash Haribhau Shinde. Citing “reasonable cause” and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tribunal set aside the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing,
ITAT Pune condones a 242-day delay and sets aside a tax addition on demonetisation cash deposits for a co-operative society, remitting the case for re-examination.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune ruled that dismissing an appeal under Section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax is unjustified when the assessee, a cooperative society,
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune has ruled in favor of an assessee, Sonal Ashish Shah, reversing an addition made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the sale of shares in Blazon Marbles Limited, an alleged penny stock company.
The Pune ITAT quashed a reassessment order, ruling that proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid. The tribunal held that information from a third-party search mandates proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 147.
