ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271B not leviable for mere delay of one day as such delay didn’t have any deliberate intention. The delay if any is on account the reasons on the technical letches on the portal and the same is venial in nature.
JCIT vs Amandeep Singh Bhatia: ITAT Indore dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 2,48,02,084/- addition as income from other sources. Detailed analysis provided.
Arvi Lights challenged a revision under section 263 of the IT Act regarding cash deposits during demonetization. ITAT Delhi found AO’s inquiries sufficient, supporting the original assessment.
CESTAT overturned the decision to demand excise duty based on the differential quantity of goods as per the ER-1 returns and the audited books of accounts. The tribunal determined that the discrepancy between the values mentioned in the RG-1 and the physical stock statement provided by the assessee was inherently inaccurate, as both values were estimated.
However, the lower authorities failed to verify the documents before reaching a conclusion. Therefore, the Appellant is granted another opportunity to present the necessary documents to the Adjudicating Authority.
ACIT challenged CIT(A)’s decision to reject the books of accounts and estimation of profit. ITAT Delhi found no errors in CIT(A)’s findings and dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
The penalty was levied for the non-disclosure of a life insurance policy held outside India in the income tax return. The ITAT ruled that the non-disclosure was a bonafide mistake and that the policy had been surrendered in the previous financial year.
In case of sales commission to overseas commission agent under reverse charge mechanism, the extended time proviso is not invokable.
ITAT disallowed the expenses claimed by by stating that a property not used for business purposes cannot be treated as a business asset. The property in question was sold and a new property was purchased using the proceeds. The expenses incurred on the new property, including watch & ward expenses and electricity expenses, were disallowed as the property was not shown as a business asset and depreciation was not claimed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of sundry creditors u/s 68/69C of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as department failed to prove that the sundry creditors are bogus.
