The Delhi ITAT ruled that a tax addition based on a vague name in uncorroborated loose papers is invalid without direct evidence linking it to the assessee. The decision emphasizes that suspicion from such dumb documents cannot replace concrete proof in tax assessments.
The Tribunal held that since the Delhi High Court had restored the Industrial Park’s original Rs. 80 IA approval, the subsequent disallowance based on the quashed withdrawal was invalid. This affirms that a valid judicial ruling overrides the Central Government’s withdrawal order, securing the tax benefit for the taxpayer.
This ITAT Rajkot decision clarifies that when an assessee establishes a clear nexus between past bank withdrawals and subsequent demonetisation cash deposits, the high tax rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable. The Tribunal, citing a Gujarat HC judgment, deleted the entire addition except for a 5% estimated profit to balance revenue interest and taxpayer evidence.
The ITAT Delhi dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that when sales are accepted and only purchases are proven bogus (due to non-existent suppliers/cancelled GST), only the profit element embedded in the purchases can be taxed, not the entire Rs.69C expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the application of the assessee’s own 1.39% Gross Profit rate on the bogus purchases, rejecting the AO’s arbitrary 25% addition.
The Lucknow ITAT ruled that a cash deposit cannot be treated as unexplained income if the assessees prior cash withdrawals from the bank are greater than the amount deposited. The burden shifts to the Revenue to prove the cash was used elsewhere, which they failed to do in this case.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a charitable trusts tax case, ruling that the AO violated natural justice by making a Rs. 2.24 crore addition based on a third-party search statement without providing the assessee with copies of the statement or documents for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits after giving the trust a proper opportunity to contest the evidence.
The ITAT Pune substantially reduced a penalty under Rs. 271(1)(b), ruling that issuing successive notices for the same set of information constitutes only a single, continuing default, not multiple independent offenses. The Tribunal restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the initial non-compliance, deleting the balance Rs. 30,000.
The Tribunal held that since over 70% of the consideration was paid in 2012 against an allotment letter, the transfer was deemed complete in the earlier year under the Income Tax Act, despite the 2016 registration date. This precedent ensures that the stamp duty value difference provision cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions substantially completed before the law changed.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
