The assessee is engaged in the business of running a Ginning Mill and dealing in cotton. A search and seizure action u/s. 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on the assessee on 12/02/2015.
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
Delhi HC quashes assessment order against Louis Dreyfus for AY 2018-19, citing violation of Section 144C(13) time limit after DRP directions.
ITAT Pune rules AO failed to justify penalty under Section 270A, citing lack of clear misreporting by assessee for AYs 2017–18 and 2018–19.
Bombay HC confirms ITAT decision setting aside PCIT’s Section 263 revision, holding AO took a valid view on interest disallowance under Section 14A.
ITAT Pune quashes revision order against Angre Port Pvt. Ltd. on legal expense claims, ruling AO had conducted due inquiry and adopted a permissible view.
ITAT Ahmedabad rejects PCIT’s revision under Section 263, holding AO had duly verified cash deposits and creditors during demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Bengaluru partly allows assessee’s appeals for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13, deleting addition under section 69A for recorded loan repayments.
ITAT Pune allows appeal in Kamlesh Bhandari vs ITO, deleting ₹24.25 lakh addition for unexplained deposits, citing lack of contrary evidence by Revenue.
ITAT concluded that merely a time gap between withdrawal and deposit does not warrant an addition under Section 69, especially when the revenue could not establish any other use of the withdrawn funds.
