The Tribunal found the tax addition in the Dulu Mahato case unsustainable. The AO failed to refer the property renovation valuation to the DVO and ignored evidence of joint investment by all co-owners.
The ITAT Hyderabad quashed a penalty order imposed under Section 270A, ruling it was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) because the order was passed in December 2021, six months after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that since the penalty was initiated in December 2020, the outer limit for passing the order had clearly expired.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal, directing the AO to readjudicate the matter afresh. The assessee must fully cooperate and pay a cost for the earlier failure to produce documents.
The ITAT Pune set aside the CIT(A)’s order that had restricted a bogus purchase addition of ₹2.53 crore to a 12.5% profit element. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure the application of the binding ruling from the jurisdictional Bombay High Court regarding 100% disallowance in hawala purchase cases.
Relying on binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the revisionary order as legally invalid because the PCIT failed to bring the legal heir on record before passing the order. The ruling firmly establishes that an income tax order passed against a dead person is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the AO’s acceptance of ₹12.18 lakh exempt LTCG on Kushal Tradelink shares was based on a detailed inquiry and a plausible view. The Tribunal held that revision is invalid when the AO conducts due diligence, finds no adverse material to link the assessee to price rigging, and takes a possible view on the evidence.
Kolkata ITAT ruled in DCIT vs. Jupiter International that a ₹6.7 crore addition in an unabated tax year was illegal. Jurisdiction under Section 153A fails without seized, incriminating material, per SC precedent.
Adopting a principle of consistency, the ITAT Delhi restored the appeal for AY 2009-10 to the CIT(A), following its own earlier order for AYs 2010-11 to 2019-20 in the assessees case. The ruling ensures that the legal heir gets a proper chance to present evidence and submissions, thereby nullifying the additions made in the ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
