The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an income tax addition made under Section 69A based on seized on-money documents lacking direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the entire cash component couldn’t be treated as undisclosed income, instead taxing only 8% of the disputed amount as a profit element at normal rates.
Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT s rejection order, ruling that the delay in filing the ITR for AY 2022-23 was due to the genuine hardship caused by the taxpayers sons death. The key takeaway is that Section 119(2)(b) must be applied compassionately, and the CPC is now directed to process the belated return.
Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenues petition, holding that a subsequent change in law (like Checkmate Services SC verdict) cannot be a ground for rectifying a concluded ITAT order under Section 254(2).
The ITAT Mumbai annulled a Section 148 reassessment notice for AY 2018-19, finding the sanction invalid because it was approved by the PCIT instead of the statutorily mandated PCCIT. The ruling strictly applies the Vodafone Idea doctrine, confirming that a jurisdictional defect in the sanctioning authority after three years is fatal to the entire proceeding.
The ITAT restored the assessee’s appeal, condoning the delay because the NFAC sent crucial communications to a wrong email, thus depriving the taxpayer of an opportunity to be heard. The ruling confirms that the entire appellate proceeding becomes non-est if service of notice is flawed, and the matter must be decided afresh on its merits.
The Delhi ITAT set aside an ex-parte assessment, remanding the Rs.13.74 lakh cash deposit case back to the AO for fresh verification. The ruling gives the taxpayer an opportunity to substantiate the deposits using a cash flow statement tracing the source to earlier large bank loan withdrawals.
Tribunal ruled that the Section 148 notice issued on 29.07.2022 was beyond the limitation period under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal (2024) decision. Reassessment proceedings were declared void, and the assessee’s appeal was fully allowed.
The Delhi ITAT deleted a Rs.18.01 lakh penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1), holding that once the underlying assessment order is set aside, the consequential penalty order cannot survive. The Tribunal clarified that the AO may initiate fresh penalty proceedings only after framing a new assessment with additions.
Delhi ITAT deleted ₹40.07 lakh added under Section 68 for demonetization-era cash deposits in proprietary firms, because the AO had accepted the audited books showing sufficient cash balance. The ruling emphasizes that additions for business deposits cant be made when the books arent rejected and sales/purchases arent doubted.
The Delhi ITAT in Jain Textile Industries v ACIT upheld the validity of a Section 147 reopening, ruling that where specific issues like omitted interest income and capital expenditure on accessories were not examined in the original assessment, the reopening is not a mere ‘change of opinion’ and is justified, even after four years.
