The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for delayed filing. The Tribunal ruled that routine official workload could not justify condonation of delay.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey number error. It directed deletion of the duplicate addition made by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CPC cannot suo motu reclassify an apartment owners association as a co-operative society while processing returns under Section 143(1). The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 97,690 demand after finding the adjustment beyond the scope of prima facie processing.
ITAT Delhi held that an appeal dismissed ex-parte by NFAC should still be decided on merits under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the appellate authority failed to consider pending writ petitions and interim directions of the Bombay High Court regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(via). The matter was remanded for reconsideration after final disposal of the writ petitions.
The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return, when it was available before processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to amend the intimation and consider the audit report.
The ITAT Bangalore held that gains arising from buyback of shares are taxable under Section 46A because the conditions prescribed under Section 47(iv) were not satisfied. The Tribunal found that the parent company did not hold the entire share capital through itself or nominees.
ITAT Mumbai held that incomplete WhatsApp chats without proof of completed transactions cannot justify additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found that the chats lacked corroborative evidence showing actual payment of money.
