The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by rejecting the explanation (withdrawal via bearer cheque) simply because the assessee had not used that method before. The ruling emphasized that the Department cannot reject a proven source unless it brings contrary evidence of an alternate undisclosed source.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded a reassessment case to verify the dispatch date of the Section 148 notice (speed post/email). The ruling, guided by the Delhi HC s Suman Jeet Agarwal case, states the date of delivery to the post office determines the notice’s validity.
The ITAT set aside the mechanical rejection of the Form 10AB application and the cancellation of the provisional 80G approval, emphasizing substance over form. The provisional approval remains valid until the CIT(E) passes a fresh order after verifying the trust’s charitable activities.
ITAT Hyderabad deleted the Capital Gains addition in AY 2016-17, ruling that conditional possession under a JDA for mere development is NOT transfer u/s 2(47)(v). Tax is due only when full possession is handed over, confirming taxability in AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that a generic, non-specific satisfaction note and the absence of incriminating material belonging to the assessee-company rendered the Section 153C proceedings invalid from the outset.1 Consequently, the entire assessment, including additions for commission income, was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s legal ground, holding that the statutory requirement of prior approval under Section 153D was reduced to an empty formality. The ruling emphasizes that the approval must indicate due application of mind to the seized material and issues for each assessment year and cannot be a generic, consolidated format.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, asserting that once supporting documents are filed, genuine capital expenses like a boundary wall cannot be dismissed as bogus. The judgment confirms that only costs directly enhancing the asset’s value (like construction) are eligible as a cost of improvement, leading to the disallowance of security guard charges.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that suspicion alone cannot lead to an addition under section 69A, especially when sales records and VAT returns were furnished. The ruling confirmed that high cash sales were justified as per the Government’s notification allowing petrol pumps to accept demonetised notes.
Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that the rubber stamp approval {u/s 153D} was non est in law, leading to the quashing of all assessments and the deletion of huge additions made against the assessee. The key takeaway for taxpayers is the success of challenging search assessments on the legal ground of invalid, mechanical u/s 153D approval.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai ruled in the case of Late Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani Vs ITO that a loan from one company to another, where a common shareholder holds less than 20% of the voting power in the borrowing company, cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
