Category: ITAT
Penalty notice u/s 271AAB without specifying ground and default in the show cause notice u/s 274 held not valid – ITAT quashed the order passed ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3118 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 …
Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying specific charge quashed. The decisions relied by Revenue rejected by the Tribunal ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3117 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Jagdamba Prasad Gupta, Delhi vs. ACITSundaram Finance Ltd., vs. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) …
Application of correct limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a question of fact and not a question of law. ITAT dismissed issue raised before it for the first time ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3114 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Sundaram Finance 403 ITR …
If business not closed down, expenses allowed u/s 37(1) even if turnover was low as it was temporary lull which assessee was trying to revive – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3113 (2019) (08) ITAT The instant appeal had been filed by the assessee against impugned order passed …
Non profit company not a comparable for Transfer Pricing. ITAT directed AO to exclude it from the list of comparables to benchmark international transaction. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3112 (2019) (08) ITAT The appellant assessee was is a subsidiary of the parent company which operated travel website under …
ITAT authorised to consider question of jurisdiction raised first time and not raised earlier as it goes to the root of the matter and substantially affects the rights of assessee ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3111 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:National Thermal Power …
No disallowance for cash payments u/s 40A(3) if genuineness of transactions and identity of the payee is established. ITAT deleted addition ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3107 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Girdharilal Soni vs. CIT reported in 179 ITR 111 (Cal).Attar Singh Gurmukh …
Reopening for not replying to invalid and non est inquiry letter for cash deposited in bank quashed. Deposit per se cannot be income of assessee. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3106 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Tajendra Kumar Ghai Vs ITO In the instant …
Addition u/s 69B for difference in stock from statement given to Bank deleted as in preceding year it was deleted following High Court judgment ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3105 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Sidhu Rice & General Mills, 281 ITR …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for mere disallowance in quantum proceedings in the absence of any falsity in the explanation offered ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3104 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited (322 ITR 158) (sc)Price Waterhouse Coopers …