Assessee did not submitted necessary details before AO. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on this score without calling for the remand report. Tribunal set-aside the impugned order.
The assessee rent for the property which remained vacant for the entire year shall be calculated as per provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. Section 23(1)(c) will not be applicable in such case.
ITAT find that the assessee has not been able to bring out genuine reasons, firstly, for such a huge delay of 1103 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and also why the assessee irrespective of being given eight opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) did not present himself or through his authorised representative before the first appellate authority.
Explore Ravindra Dattu Jadhav vs. ITO case: Uncovering undisclosed income in land trading, agricultural activity dispute. ITAT Pune modifies CIT(A) order, restricts addition to 50%.
Explore the case of Nitin Madhukar Rathi vs. DCIT at ITAT Pune involving unsecured loans and unexplained cash deposits. CIT(A) partially grants relief, but Rs. 38,00,000 addition confirmed.
Discover the ITAT Pune decision in DCIT Vs Haldex India Pvt. Ltd. case. Analysis of subsidy taxability under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. Learn more.
No penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee.
Read the detailed analysis of ACIT Vs Tata Autocomp case by ITAT Pune. Disputed deduction of Rs.2.64 crore for Administrative Service charges, resolved in favor of the assessee.
Explore ITAT Pune resolution in ACIT vs. Rohan & Rajdeep case. Deduction dispute u/s 80IA(4) for infra projects analyzed. Reopening validity examined.
If an agreement for sale of immovable property is not registered, it does not amount to transfer in view of the 2001 amendment carried out to section 55A of the Transfer of Property Act and also simultaneous amendments to section 17(1A) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908
