The Gujarat High Court set aside the reassessment after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific reasons for treating bank credits as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits representing recorded business sales could not be treated as unexplained under Section 68 when the books of account and trading results had been accepted. It deleted the addition relating to demonetisation cash deposits.
The ITAT Delhi held that an adjustment against excess contributions already made to an approved gratuity fund could not be disallowed under Section 40A(7). It also held that contributions to an approved gratuity fund are allowable under Section 40A(7)(b), resulting in deletion of the disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during complete scrutiny and adopted a permissible view. Since the twin conditions under Section 263 were not satisfied, the revision order was quashed.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reassessment notice after finding that the seized inquiry register did not establish any direct or indirect connection with the taxpayer. It held that reopening based on vague material and presumptions was unsustainable.
The High Court found that withdrawal of garnishee notices and compliance with the CBDT Office Memoranda entitled the assessee to stay of recovery. It held the subsequent refund adjustments to be legally unsustainable.
ITAT Chennai held that the reassessment notice issued on 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation under Section 149, following the Supreme Court’s decisions. The reassessment proceedings were quashed without examining the merits of the additions.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Section 69C cannot be invoked where expenditure is duly recorded in the books and its source is fully explained. It deleted the addition relating to royalty, commission, and technical service payments.
ITAT Nagpur held that rejection of 12A and 80G applications solely because of an incorrect statutory provision was unsustainable. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to allow rectification and decide the applications on merits.
ITAT Delhi restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer after noting that the related quantum appeal had already been remanded for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the penalty should also be reconsidered in accordance with law.
