The ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of a ₹2.5 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessee provided full documentary proof of the loan’s identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The Tribunal emphasized that once the primary onus is discharged, the AO must conduct an independent inquiry rather than relying on an unverified Investigation Wing report.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an addition under Section 69 based only on an untested third-party statement, without cross-examination, violates natural justice. The ₹60 lakh on-money allegation was deleted.
The Assessee contested a cryptic CIT(A) order that failed to discuss documentation provided for Long Term Capital Gains and property investment sources. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the non-speaking order for de novo adjudication. This ruling reinforces the principle that every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons to ensure fairness and proper justice.
The issue was the summary confirmation of an 8% estimated income addition on a hotel business by the NFAC without conducting independent inquiry or giving reasons. The ITAT set aside the non-speaking order, emphasizing that the CIT(A)’s powers are co-terminous with the AO’s, requiring proper investigation and a reasoned decision. The key takeaway is the mandate for appellate authorities to make an independent inquiry and not just rubber-stamp the AO’s order.
Rajkot ITAT deleted an addition of ₹94.81 lakh, holding that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act is accretion to compensation, not interest taxable under Section 56(2)(viii). Since acquired land was rural agricultural land (not a capital asset), compensation, including Section 28 interest, is wholly exempt from tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that when sales and stock figures are accepted, entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Only the profit element at 3% is taxable, following consistent judicial precedent.
The tax addition on ₹17.63 lakh demonetization cash deposits was challenged as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and savings. The ITAT deleted the addition, emphasizing that prior, undisputed withdrawals cannot be taxed as unexplained money unless the tax authority proves alternate use. The key takeaway upholds the principle that redeposit of existing capital is not income under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that ₹1.75 crore in cash deposits were explained as redeposits from earlier withdrawals, deleting additions made under Section 69A since no evidence showed alternate use of the cash.
Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes Deemed Rent on 5 Flats – Accepts Genuine Vacancy Claim but Upholds Addition on Office Property Assessee, an individual, filed a return declaring income of ₹10.60 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large capital gain deductions claimed u/s 54, 54B, 54EC, 54EE, […]
ITAT Delhi ruled that a reassessment notice served under Section 148 on a foreign FPI (Singapore company) after its formal dissolution is void ab initio. This decision confirms that proceedings against a non-existent entity, even if served shortly after winding up, are invalid and cannot be cured by Section 292B.
