Assessee, a retired bank employee earning pension, deposited Rs.15 lakhs cash in his bank account on 13.11.2016 which he explained as withdrawal on 13.10.2015 or a perceived need and kept the cash with him and the very same cash was deposited . AO rejected the explanation for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the perceived need for which cash was withdrawn holding that no prudent person would keep cash and lose interest if he deposits the money in FD. AO treated the cash deposit u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment beyond four years period is invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that that the salary paid by the head office to expatriate employees working in Indian branches is allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition of investment made in India by tax resident of UAE is unsustainable as in terms of Indo UAE tax treaty, the right to tax the income doesnt belong to India.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that investment made in gold ornaments was duly recorded in the books of accounts and also reflected in the block of assets. Hence, such investment cannot be stated to be remained unexplained.
ITAT Jaipur held that benefit of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act unavailable on bogus donation on adoption of unfair means.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act based on the approval granted in a routine and casual manner is unsustainable in the eye of law.
Asokan Meena Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed her return of income for the AY 2016-17 in ITR-4 and has maintained books of accounts, but for the AY 2017-18, she had filed return of income u/s.44AD of the Act, and estimated net profit without any books of […]
Sh. Vinod Jindal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Penalty under section 271AAA of the Act was imposed based on the additions made in the assessment order, aggregating to Rs.24,54,184/-. However, while deciding assessee’s quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No. 839/Del/2017, dated 30.06.2022 has deleted addition of Rs. 1 lakh made on account of unexplained cash. […]
Once the mistake is brought to fore and is in knowledge of the authority, it is incumbent upon the authority, who is possessed with all the powers, to take a deep dive into the matter to ascertain the correct facts and understand the mistake as well as see how the effect of mistake was mitigated.
