ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1.21 crore in subcontract expenses because the taxpayer failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to substantiate the payments, especially those linked to a director’s relative. The Tribunal upheld the AO’s finding that the genuineness of the expenditure was not satisfactorily proved.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.1.02 crore addition made under Section 68, rejecting the AO’s claim that a loan was an accommodation entry. The Tribunal ruled the loan was a genuine business transaction, used specifically for repaying an existing business loan, establishing the required nexus and purpose.
ITAT Chennai granted relief, holding that reversal of a provision for liquidated damages, which was disallowed and subsequently taxed under VSV Scheme in earlier years, cannot be taxed again under Section 41(1). This prevents double taxation.
ITAT Delhi directed the AO to compute Annual Letting Value (ALV) only for the portion of the house property actually rented out (third/fourth floors). Taxing the entire property based on assumptions, ignoring the owner’s self-occupation, was held to be unjustified.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening for AY 2015-16, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling. The Tribunal held that the benefit of the extended limitation under TOLA was unavailable after 01.04.2021 for this assessment year.
ITAT Kolkata invalidated the assessment under Section 143(3), ruling that the foundational notice under Section 143(2) was void ab initio for failing to comply with the mandatory CBDT prescribed format. CBDT instructions issued under Section 119 are binding on the department.
ITAT Kolkata ruled that a charitable trust’s exemption under Section 11/10(23C) cannot be denied for technical lapse of belatedly filing Form 10B/10BB. Audit report was available when return was processed.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld adding Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as unexplained income under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that the genuineness of penny stock transactions must be judged by the test of human probabilities.
ITAT Chandigarh deleted a Rs.20 lakh penalty levied under Section 271D for a cash deposit violating Section 269SS. The Tribunal ruled the deposit was a temporary parking of funds by the father for security, not a loan or deposit.
ITAT Kolkata deleted a Rs.7.11 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that an assessee’s comprehensive documentary evidence (PAN, bank statements) cannot be dismissed merely because subscribers failed to appear for summons. The onus shifted back to the Revenue.
