Income Tax : Practical guide to tax audit under Section 44AB for trader assessees, covering groundwork, data analysis, compliance checks, and f...
Income Tax : Summary of the judgement About the assessee The assessee is a limited liability company engaged in the business of manufacture and...
Income Tax : Deduction of TDS and Taxability of the same; An Analysis of section 198 and 145 of Income tax 1961. As per basic understanding, th...
Income Tax : Self assessment - The assessee is required to make a self assessment and pay the tax on the basis of the returns furnished. Any ta...
Income Tax : ♦ Section 145A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ‘145A. Method of accounting in certain cases.—Notwithstanding anything to the contra...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that extensive documentary evidence, audited books, supplier confirmations and banking records established the g...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under S...
Income Tax : The ITAT Raipur held that estimated gross profit addition on unrecorded sales cannot be sustained when the Assessing Officer has n...
Income Tax : Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal emphasized that detailed quantitative reconciliation and accepted export realizations carried substantial evidentiary...
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
ITAT Jaipur ruled that ₹52.78 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-period cash deposits was unsustainable, citing reliable books of accounts and factual verification.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be approved since explanation of assessee is rejected without verification and also Standard Operation Procedures [SOP] provided in CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21/02/2017 also not followed. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of AO.
ITAT Pune held that late filing of audit report cannot disentitle trust from availing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) allowing claim of exemption u/s. 11 upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Agra held that entire TDS deducted on maturity of bond is allowable since assessee has already offered interest income on accrual basis. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed and TDS credit granted.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS need not be deducted on year-end expense provisions where payees are unidentifiable and liability crystallizes later. Case remanded for factual verification.
ITAT Delhi allowed Ekalavya Gift Galleries Pvt. Ltd.’s appeals, holding that share capital and premium received from investors were properly explained and not taxable under section 68.
AO made an addition based on difference between stamp value and purchase price without referring matter to a Valuation Officer despite assessee’s objection. ITAT held this omission violated Section 56(2)(x) and principles of natural justice. It observed that assessee’s registered valuer report showing a lower market value was ignored. Consequently, addition was quashed.
Hyderabad ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order, deleting an addition for cash deposits during the demonetisation period because the Assessing Officer (AO) ignored 28 debtor confirmations and audited accounts. The Tribunal held that an addition under Section 68 is invalid without rejecting the genuine books of account or verifying the provided evidence of business receipts.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld PCIT’s revision under Section 263 because AO wrongly allowed a cumulative Rs.28.72 crore foreign exchange loss on ECB repayment in one year. Tribunal ruled that under ICDS-VI and AS-11, forex differences must be recognized annually, making AO’s failure to verify compliance erroneous.
