The ITAT set aside a CIT(A) order that allowed a Section 54B capital gains exemption, because the CIT(A) copied a co-owners case ruling without independently verifying the factual evidence of agricultural use. The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision based on factual findings.
The ITAT upheld the disallowance of delayed employee contributions to PF/ESIC, ruling that the Supreme Courts Checkmate Services judgment is retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise by the SC itself. The Tribunal confirmed that the doctrine of prospective overruling cannot be invoked by the assessee, as the ruling merely interprets the law as it always existed.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a business’s cash deposits during the demonetisation period were not unexplained under 68, provided they were sourced from genuine sales. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, holding that the lower authorities stock calculation was flawed and statutory records (VAT, Audited Books) corroborated the sales genuineness.
The ITAT Delhi remanded the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions under 36(1)(va), holding that the due date for deposit is calculated from the actual date of salary disbursement, not the calendar month of accrual. The AO was directed to verify if the deposit was made within 15 days of the month of actual payment to allow the deduction.c
The issue was whether high cash sales recorded before demonetisation, and subsequently deposited, could be taxed as unexplained income. The ITAT ruled that since the sales were already recorded, audited, and offered for tax, the deposits could not be taxed again under Section 68 or 69. The key takeaway is that when books of accounts are accepted and corroborated by stock and VAT returns, genuine sales receipts cannot be subjected to double taxation based on mere suspicion or averages.
This ITAT ruling draws a clear line: it upheld the legal and evidence-based addition of ₹6.12 lakh for deemed rental income on multiple house properties, but simultaneously deleted the entire ₹5,87,500 addition for unexplained cash credit, condemning the use of arbitrary 50% estimations by tax authorities.
The Tribunal deleted the ₹10 lakh penalty, ruling that an estimated addition based on the non-genuineness of purchases does not constitute concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reaffirms the Supreme Court principle that making an unsustainable claim does not automatically attract a penalty.
The ITAT significantly reduced an unexplained cash credit addition from Rs. 32.86 lakh to a lump-sum of Rs.4 lakh, reasoning that a regular exporter with maintained books cannot have the entire demonetisation deposit treated as unexplained. Crucially, the Tribunal directed the tax to be computed at normal rates, holding that Section 115BBE (higher tax rate) does not apply to the financial year 2016-17.
The ITAT invalidated a reassessment order because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make any addition on the sole issue for which the reassessment was initiated (cash deposits). Citing binding precedent, the Tribunal ruled that once the reason to believe ground is not established, the AO loses jurisdiction to make additions on entirely new issues, quashing the entire assessment.
