The Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated excel-sheet entries and third-party statements. The Tribunal deleted the alleged on-money addition in the Rubberwala Group matter.
The Bangalore ITAT held that genuine business sales recorded in audited books cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits merely because payment was received in Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation. The Tribunal deleted the ₹29.27 lakh addition under Section 68.
The Bangalore ITAT held that an assessee claiming exemption based on Form 16 issued by the employer acted under a bona fide belief and cannot automatically be penalized for misreporting. The Tribunal deleted the ₹51.20 lakh penalty levied under Section 270A.
ITAT Chandigarh held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the assessee failed to deposit unutilised funds in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal ruled that actual investment in a residential house within the prescribed period amounted to substantive compliance deserving liberal interpretation.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment proceedings become void when approval under Section 151 is taken from the wrong authority. Since sanction was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, the notice under Section 148 was quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT allowed deduction of professional fees paid for facilitating remittances relating to Iranian-origin imports affected by OFAC sanctions. The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
The Tribunal ruled that CPC’s application of a 30% tax rate merely due to absence of turnover disclosure in the return form could not override the concessional rate provided by law.
Pune ITAT held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for cash deposits, reassessment could not continue on a completely new issue without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148.
Bangalore ITAT held that interest earned on statutory SLR and fluid resource deposits maintained under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
