ITAT Ahmedabad restored a case where the CIT(A) upheld a major loss disallowance stemming from client code modification (CCM) without proper hearing. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) failed to consider that the addition was based on unsubstantiated claims from a report, directing a fresh hearing to examine evidence of genuine trading.
ITAT Raipur set aside the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed before the 01.06.2015 amendment to Section 200A. Following the Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that in the absence of an enabling provision for computation, the levy of a late fee for the period before that date is unenforceable.
ITAT Rajkot confirmed that for a small trader opting for Section 44AD, the presumptive income covers the cash deposits related to the business cycle, making any separate addition for unexplained money (Section 69A) unjustifiable. The entire addition was deleted as the tax authorities acted on mere suspicion without bringing any contrary evidence to disprove the business nature of the deposits.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the revisionary order, finding the PCITs basis—that no supporting documents for the share LTCG were on record—was factually incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the AO had taken a plausible view after due inquiry, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to substitute his own view for the AOs.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred by blindly relying on NMS data to make a ₹1.23 crore addition for unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the registered sale deed proved the actual consideration was only ₹30 lakh (higher than the circle rate), the addition was deemed baseless and deleted in full.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that the lower authorities were wrong to confirm the addition for foreign currency found during the search, as the assessee provided a chart detailing various family trips abroad. The decision confirms that, in the absence of contrary evidence by the Revenue, a plausible explanation supported by travel records is enough to discharge the burden of proof.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided only after the quantum appeal is finalized.
The ITAT Delhi partly deleted an addition for alleged bogus purchases, ruling that since the books of account were not rejected and the profit element from corresponding sales was already offered to tax, taxing 12.5% of the bogus purchase value constituted double taxation. The Tribunal finally restricted the addition to an agreed-upon amount of Rs.4,00,000.
Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of 71.12 lakh, holding that the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits by correlating them with prior cash withdrawals recorded in the books. The ruling emphasizes that S. 69A (unexplained money) cannot be invoked when the source of deposits is traced to funds from bank accounts already part of the regular books.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.23 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had fully discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors. Since complete evidence (confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements) was filed and no adverse material was found, the addition could not be sustained.
