The Kolkata ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income addition is based on peak credit estimation. The Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not automatically prove concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT upheld disallowance of ₹11.71 lakh towards loan processing fees after finding that the loans were obtained for broader business purposes and not for acquiring the property generating rental income. The ruling clarified the limited scope of deductions available under Section 24(b).
The Kolkata ITAT held that a commercial loan repaid within the same financial year along with interest and TDS compliance could not be treated as a bogus accommodation entry under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that documentary evidence and banking transactions established the genuineness of the loan.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80GGC does not automatically amount to misreporting of income. It deleted the penalty as there was no evidence of false particulars or fabricated documents.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced exemption limit of ₹25 lakh under CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 applies to leave encashment claims under Section 10(10AA)(ii). Full exemption of ₹10.15 lakh was allowed to the retired SBI employee.
The Tribunal held that unsigned documents and Tally entries seized from a developer’s premises cannot justify additions without corroborative evidence. It ruled that no addition can survive merely on third-party material lacking proof of actual cash movement.
The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and MCA records of lenders were furnished. The ruling reinforces that documentary evidence can successfully rebut allegations of bogus loans.
The Tribunal ruled that a clerical mistake in quoting TAN cannot result in denial of TDS credit when Form 16 and Form 26AS clearly establish tax deduction. The decision emphasizes substance over procedural technicalities.
The Tribunal ruled that mere observations about cash transactions are insufficient to levy penalty under Section 271D. A specific finding establishing contravention of Section 269SS is mandatory before imposing penalty.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that only the actual period lost during the limitation period can be excluded under Explanation-1 to Section 153. It ruled that the assessment order passed beyond the permissible period was invalid.
