ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order deleting additions for AY 2013–14, ruling that year fell outside six-year block under Section 153C based on satisfaction date in FY 2021–22.
The High Court issued an interim direction against the CIT (Exemptions) orders that rejected the condonation of significant delays in a charitable trust’s Form 10B filing. The ruling provides interim protection, ensuring the trust’s substantive exemption claim isn’t defeated by technical filing delays while the CBDT’s new restrictive guidelines are under judicial scrutiny.
The ITAT Pune set aside a best judgment assessment (u/s 144) that arbitrarily estimated an 8% net profit for a poultry farm and disallowed interest expense. The Tribunal ruled that substantive justice requires a fresh adjudication, remanding the case to the AO to allow the assessee a fair chance to present audited books and evidence.
ITAT Agra deleted additions on gifts received from real sisters, holding that when identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are proven, Section 68 cannot apply to family gifts made out of natural affection.
The Tribunal sustained the addition due to the AO’s rejection of the books under s.145, which was warranted by the assessee’s non-submission of separate purchase/sale and MRP details for country liquor and IMFL. The ITAT found the 10 estimated GP rate reasonable, falling within the normal range for the liquor trade, and confirmed the addition.
ITAT Pune held that filing a revised return after the Department detects wrong deductions is not voluntary. Since the assessee acted only after detection, penalty u/s 270A(9) for misreporting was rightly imposed at 200% of tax.
ITAT Pune held that reopening based on old investigation data was invalid where transactions were already verified under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the penny stock gains genuine as supported by Demat, bank, and STT records.
The ITAT Bangalore deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh addition made on demonetisation cash deposits, ruling that cash from accounted sales in audited books cannot be deemed unexplained income simply due to being deposited during the demonetisation period. The Tribunal also deleted a Rs.4 lakh addition on lorry cost, finding the refund of an advance was correctly reflected in the genuine cash book.
The ITAT Bangalore set aside an ex-parte assessment, which included additions for low profit and demonetisation cash deposits, after the assessee cited the genuine reason of his son’s death and subsequent health issues for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the audited books, expenses, and cash sources after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.
The dispute was the computation of the block period under S 153 for a non-searched person, where the AO counted the period from the search date. The ITAT affirmed the quashing of the assessment, ruling that the block period must be reckoned from the date the seized material is received by the jurisdictional AO, as per binding Supreme Court precedent.
