Assessee, an individual, had deposited cash in his bank account. During assessment, AO observed that assessee had entered into share transactions and earned income from commodities through Multi Commodity Exchange.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
ITAT Pune nullifies AO’s Rs.3.36 lakh addition for cash purchases, citing lack of evidence and failure to provide requested information.
ITAT Mumbai condones delay in Jayesh Hirji Savla’s case, following Supreme Court principles on substantial justice, and remands the matter for reassessment.
ITAT Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
ITAT Delhi held that not filing of Audit Report in Form 10B alongwith the return of income is a procedural omission only and cannot be impediment in law in claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that matter needs to be remanded back as assessee failed to furnish corroborative documentary evidence to prove cash sales during demonetization period and certain proofs were submitted only before the present tribunal.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.
ITAT Mumbai deletes disallowance of capital gains by DCIT after confirming investment in property with Charity Commissioner approval. Appeal dismissed.
