Judgement

ITAT Mumbai quashes the Rs. 59.87 lakh addition and directs the AO to adopt the stamp duty valuation from the original allotment year (F.Y. 2012-13).

ITAT Mumbai Quashes Rs. 59.87 Lakh Addition, Saying Property Valuation Must Match Allotment Year

Tribunal holds that deduction for provision for bad debts must be computed on “total income” as expressly stated in the statute

ITAT: Section 36(1)(viia) Deduction Allowed on Total Income; Section 263 Revision Upheld Only for 14A Non-Examination

Tribunal holds that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT prefers a deeper enquiry; AO had already made detailed investigations and adopted a plausible view.

ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Section 263 Orders Passed Without Any Finding of Error in 153C Assessments

Tribunal restores assessee’s Section 54F exemption claim to the Assessing Officer after admitting additional evidence

ITAT Pune Remands Section 54F Claim for Fresh Verification; Additional Evidence Allowed Under Rule 29

Tribunal finds MOU fabricated and holds cess and deductions were contractually the subcontractor’s liability

ITAT Rejects Claim for Transportation & Subletting Expenses in Railway Contract Dispute

There was a delay of 93 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal because of the mistaken belief of their tax professional that the appeal against the quantum order was already filed by the assessee.

Explore Our Blogs

Stay updated with the latest insights, tips, and industry trends from our experts

ITAT Mumbai Quashes Rs. 59.87 Lakh Addition, Saying Property Valuation Must Match Allotment Year

ITAT: Section 36(1)(viia) Deduction Allowed on Total Income; Section 263 Revision Upheld Only for 14A Non-Examination

ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Section 263 Orders Passed Without Any Finding of Error in 153C Assessments

ITAT Pune Remands Section 54F Claim for Fresh Verification; Additional Evidence Allowed Under Rule 29

ITAT Rejects Claim for Transportation & Subletting Expenses in Railway Contract Dispute

ITAT Condones Delay Caused by Mistaken Belief of Assessee's Tax Professional; Remands Matter to CIT(A)