Tag: ITAT Chennai
ITAT deleted addition for cash deposit on account of the statement given by the Prime Minister, press statement and CBDT SOP In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained on account of the statement given by the Prime Minister, press statement …
Order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is not appealable before the Tribunal In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that an order passed by the Commissioner under section 119(2)(b) of the Act is an administrative order; therefore, the same is not appealable before the Tribunal. …
Exemption u/s 54F can not be denied merely because assessee did not deposit net sale consideration in capital gain account In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that exemption u/s 54F can not be denied merely because assessee did not deposit net sale consideration in capital gain …
Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) deleted in absence of DVO’s report where the building on the land purchased was 30 years old In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai deleted addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) as there was no DVO’s report as on the date of impugned order and the subject building was …
No Penalty can be imposed u/s 270A by AO on the basis of difference in fair market value determined by the DVO on estimation basis with the sale deed price. In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has deleted Penalty under section 270A imposed by AO on the basis …
Statements recorded u/s 131(1A) instead of section 133A(iii) by survey team were invalid hence no addition can be made merely on the basis of invalid statements – ITAT In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that statements recorded u/s 131(1A) instead of section 133A(iii) by the survey …
House Property Rent or Business Income-Activity not ownership is decisive. ITAT Chennai, following Supreme Court Judgment upheld bifurcation of rent received from commercial complex into rent and business income. Case Law Details: ITA No.402/Mds/2013 Assessment Year : 2003-04 DCIT vs. M/s Keyaram Hotel Pvt. Ltd ITA Nos.2215 & 2216/Mds/2015 Assessment …
Consent of assessee cannot give AO right to make additions. the consent of the assesse/authorised representative cannot be a reason to sustain the addition. This was upheld by ITAT Chennai in a recent judgment as under: Case Details: ITA Nos. 300 to 303/Mds/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2013-14 M/s. …
No difference between gift and settlement for capital gains purposes. In a recent judgment, ITAT, Chennai has held that there is no difference between a gift and settlement and for the purpose of computing capital gains, the holding period of the capital asset (Trade Mark) transferred, the holding period …
In a recent judgment, ITAT Chennai has held that paucity of funds due to project expansion was a sufficient case not to levy penalty u/s 221(1) for non payment of self assessment tax before filing return of income. Case Law Details: ITA No. 611/Mds/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. …
