ITAT Delhi rules on Sh. Nikki Tyagi’s appeal against penalty under Sec. 271B for failure to audit accounts due to turnover limits. Clarifies income on commission basis.
ITAT Delhi hears Mohd Javed’s appeal against penalty under Sec. 271B, assessing the nature of cash deposits as agent turnover vs. personal income.
ITAT Bangalore held that payments made by [Google Ireland Limited] GIL towards Adwords program is not in the nature of royalty or FTS [Fees for Technical Service] and hence the same is not taxable in India.
Madras High Court held that issuance of notice in the name of assessee unjustified as Official Assignee has taken charge of the entire estate of the original assessee. Once the assets are taken over by official assignee the notice issued to dead person is non est in law.
ITAT Chennai held that an AO is not permitted to take different stand on the same issue and same set of facts over different years. Thus, exemption u/s. 11 granted in spite of the fact that return was filed using ITR-6.
Patna High Court held that invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unjustified as lack of jurisdiction and the absence of compliance with principles of natural justice have been merely raised but not substantiated.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on technical/ procedural aspect merely because the appeal was filed manually instead of e-filing unjustified as assessee was not given an opportunity to cure the defect. Accordingly, appeal restored back.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of deduction under section 54EC of the Income Tax Act allowed since nexus between advance received towards sale of property and investment made in NHAI bonds established.
ITAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue since tax effect is below the threshold specified by CBDT vide circular no. 5 of 2004 dated 15.03.2024 and also the case doesn’t fall under any exception as per CBDT circular.
ITAT Chennai held that action of AO based on jurisdictional High Court decision as prevalent on the specified time, which was later on reversed by the Supreme Court, cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
