The ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
The core issue was whether the Revenue could make a Section 68 addition when the same share investors and identical facts were previously validated by the ITAT in earlier years. The Delhi ITAT upheld the principle of judicial consistency, confirming the deletion of the full addition and concluding that without new evidence, the genuineness of the share application money stands proven.
ITAT Kolkata held that mere non-filing of income tax returns by suppliers or non-response to notices cannot make an assessee’s expenses bogus. Proper verification of invoices, ledgers, payments, and work done is mandatory before disallowing purchases or subcontract expenses.
The ITAT remanded the assessment for an individuals commission income, ruling that the Assessing Officer (AO) must first verify if the income was already offered to tax by the company of which the assessee was a Director. The key takeaway is the prohibition of double taxation on the same income, directing the AO to delete the addition if the company has paid the tax.
This ruling addresses a massive tax demand raised by CPC under Section 143(1) based solely on a clerical error in the original Form 3CD. The ITAT set aside the orders, holding that natural justice mandates the assessee be heard and the correct audit report considered before imposing such a significant liability.
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.
