The core issue was the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to two contradictory CIT(A) orders, one of which cited the late filing of Form 67. The ITAT ruled that since Form 67 was filed before the end of the Assessment Year as per the amended Rule 128(9), the assessee is entitled to the FTC. This decision confirms the extended time limit for filing Form 67 and upholds the principle that one appellate authority cannot overrule a final order of another appellate authority for the same year.
The issue was the summary dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, despite giving only a one-day notice for hearing and a timely adjournment request. The ITAT ruled that dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable time violated the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back, emphasizing the requirement for adequate opportunity of hearing in appellate proceedings.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
CBDT directs Assessing Officers to standardize verification of pre-operative and film production expenses, following C&AG audit and PAC report.
ITAT Ahmedabad restored a case where the CIT(A) upheld a major loss disallowance stemming from client code modification (CCM) without proper hearing. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) failed to consider that the addition was based on unsubstantiated claims from a report, directing a fresh hearing to examine evidence of genuine trading.
ITAT Raipur set aside the levy of fees under Section 234E for delayed TDS statements filed before the 01.06.2015 amendment to Section 200A. Following the Karnataka High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that in the absence of an enabling provision for computation, the levy of a late fee for the period before that date is unenforceable.
ITAT Rajkot confirmed that for a small trader opting for Section 44AD, the presumptive income covers the cash deposits related to the business cycle, making any separate addition for unexplained money (Section 69A) unjustifiable. The entire addition was deleted as the tax authorities acted on mere suspicion without bringing any contrary evidence to disprove the business nature of the deposits.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the revisionary order, finding the PCITs basis—that no supporting documents for the share LTCG were on record—was factually incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the AO had taken a plausible view after due inquiry, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to substitute his own view for the AOs.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO erred by blindly relying on NMS data to make a ₹1.23 crore addition for unexplained investment under Section 69. Since the registered sale deed proved the actual consideration was only ₹30 lakh (higher than the circle rate), the addition was deemed baseless and deleted in full.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that the lower authorities were wrong to confirm the addition for foreign currency found during the search, as the assessee provided a chart detailing various family trips abroad. The decision confirms that, in the absence of contrary evidence by the Revenue, a plausible explanation supported by travel records is enough to discharge the burden of proof.
