ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 290-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting that the order was sent to an old email address and the officer’s illness caused genuine hardship.
The Tribunal reduced unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs.11.59 lakh to Rs.2.59 lakh, noting both the taxpayer and the department failed to fully substantiate their claims during the demonetization scrutiny.
ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment in property under Section 69A. The tribunal noted that being an NRI, the assessee could not access required documents in time, warranting reconsideration by the AO.
ITAT Ahmedabad remitted the case back to the AO after CIT(A) upheld an addition of ₹2.47 crore as unexplained share capital. The assessee had provided detailed bank records, personal books, and PAN/ITR proofs which were ignored, violating principles of natural justice.
DCIT Vs Indian Hydro Electric Power Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) No Incriminating Evidence, Only Excel — ITAT Deletes ₹25 Cr Addition in Moser Baer Group Case Search was conducted on the Moser Baer Group, covering Assessee’s premises. During search, an Excel sheet titled “Funds Position” was found on a group employee’s laptop, showing loan entries. […]
The tribunal annulled assessment proceedings, holding that the approval under Section 153D was granted in a mechanical, non-application-of-mind manner without separate consideration for each year.
ITAT upheld reopening of assessment but allowed Section 54 exemption, ruling that construction delay due to YEIDA’s possession issues was beyond assessee’s control and thus eligible for relief.
The tribunal upheld deletion of ₹45 crore additions where losses from share transactions were disallowed as bogus. It held that all transactions were recorded, disclosed, and supported by evidence.
The Tribunal condoned an 86-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee’s unavoidable family issues as a reasonable cause. This confirms that genuine reasons can justify late appeals under tax law.
The Tribunal held that common area maintenance (CAM) charges are separate from rent and constitute contractual payments, making them liable for TDS under Section 194C. The AO is directed to recompute CAM charges accordingly.
