ITAT Kolkata rules on Section 271AAC penalty, clarifying tax implications for returns filed under Section 139. Read the full case summary and key takeaways.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Aaryan Buildspace LLP, holding that Section 43CB does not apply to real estate developers recognizing revenue under AS-9.
ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled no penalty for voluntary income disclosure post-survey, rejecting AO’s concealment claims.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside CIT(A)’s ex-parte order in Gurpreet Singh Rajput’s case, allowing reassessment after providing the assessee another hearing opportunity.
Enterprises claiming deductions under Section 80IC were not required to obtain government approval if they operate in notified special zones. Section 80IC did not mandate an agreement or approval from state or local authorities.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessee has sufficient amount of interest free fund to make investment yielding exempt income, therefore, disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Assessee was unable to produce list of documents for the gold, leading to its seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The gold was later inventoried and seized at the Customs House, and assessee recorded a voluntary statement.
Assessee contended that there was no violation of provisions of sec.269T since the security deposits were obtained through banking channels and were only adjusted towards the outstanding dues.
ITAT Jaipur ruled on addition of ₹1.75 crore as unexplained credit in ITO Vs Kedia Builders. The tribunal highlighted compliance with Section 68 requirements.
ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of assessee in Poonam Ramesh Sahajwani vs ITO case, applying Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to consider stamp duty value on agreement date.
