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.
ITAT Pune ruling on Sheetal Collection clarifies no written retraction is needed for statements under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act.
Assessee had claimed a tax exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) which allowed tax exemptions for educational institutions provided certain conditions prescribed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) were met.
ITAT Pune held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act entirely allowed as entire amount re-invested by the assessee and name of the son taken only as a proforma purchaser.
Assessee-company was carrying out the business of manufacturing and trading of dies and pigments, but no business activity was carried out during the period when the assessment proceedings were carried out.
