ITAT Mumbai fully deleted Rs.7.23 crore in additions made under Sections 69A, 69B, and 69C following a search. The Tribunal ruled that the black diary entries, initially treated as unexplained expenditure, money, and investment, were actually reconciled with the audited ledgers of the LLP, rendering the AO inference as mere conjecture.
The ITAT Jaipur ruled that an entire reassessment order must be quashed if the Assessing Officer (AO) makes no addition on the specific issue for which the case was reopened. Following the binding Rajasthan High Court precedent in Shri Ram Singh, the Tribunal held that the AO loses jurisdiction to assess unrelated, other escaped income (like LTCG) once the initial reason to believe is found to be incorrect.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the CIT(E)s order rejecting 80G approval, ruling that the mere presence of religious objects does not automatically disqualify a charitable trust. The CIT(E) must now verify if the trust’s actual religious expenditure exceeds the 5% threshold under Section 80G(5B) before denial.
ITAT ruled that CPC’s adjustment denying the Section 80IE deduction without prior intimation may violate Section 143(1)(a); the matter was remanded to verify if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.
This ITAT Ahmedabad decision rules that the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) cannot summarily reject a new manufacturing company’s claim for the 22% tax rate under section 115BAB during processing under section 143(1) without issuing a prior intimation. The Tribunal held that the eligibility for the concessional rate is a debatable issue that cannot be adjusted as a “mistake apparent from record.”
The Tribunal upheld that a provision made for arrears of VDA, PFD, and HRA pursuant to a High Court directive represented a crystallized liability. Since the assessee’s obligation was judicially enforceable, the expenditure was allowable. Disallowance was correctly limited to 30% under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi held that commission earned by a cooperative society from marketing sugarcane grown by its members qualifies as business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii), not as income from other sources.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment orders issued outside the Faceless Scheme and without a valid DIN were void ab initio, striking down additions under Sections 69A/69B.
The ITAT Rajkot deleted a ₹61 lakh addition made under Section 69A, ruling the funds belonged to clients of the assessee who acted as a sub-share broker. The Tribunal held that Section 69A is inapplicable as the assessee was not the owner of the money, which was meant for derivative transactions.
The Tribunal found that additions made purely on estimated profit percentages cannot attract concealment penalty. Since no specific inaccuracy or suppression was proven, ITAT deleted the penalty in full. The ruling aligns with precedents from Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat High Courts.
