ITAT Hyderabad held that gold deposit agreements produced after the survey, without contemporaneous evidence or book entries, could not explain excess gold found during survey. The addition of ₹3.75 crore was therefore sustained.
The ITAT held that the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained as the assessee had produced land records, agricultural sale bills, and bank statements supporting the agricultural income. The Tribunal found that these documents had been ignored during assessment.
Tribunal held that omission to mention the exact charging provision did not vitiate the assessment where unexplained cash and bullion were clearly established. Relief was granted only for the cash supported by contemporaneous records.
The ITAT Nagpur held that an incorrect section code selected in Form 10AB was a technical and bona fide clerical mistake. Since the trust’s charitable activities and documents were found genuine, registration under Section 12AB could not be denied.
The ITAT held that non-reporting of capital gains from redemption of mutual funds amounted to underreporting resulting from misreporting of income. It upheld the penalty under Section 270A after finding failure to record receipts affecting total income.
ITAT Chennai held that unrealizable assets of a company under insolvency could not be included while computing fair market value under Rule 11UA. The Tribunal directed recomputation using the NCLT auction price instead of the artificial valuation adopted by the AO.
ITAT Delhi held that the CIT(A) validly remanded a best judgment reassessment after repeated non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) empowered the appellate authority to order a fresh reassessment.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that no TDS was deductible where professional fees paid to each payee were below the statutory threshold. It also deleted the branch stock addition after finding that the unsold stock represented an amount recoverable from the branch and not taxable income.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred in India without any agreement or arrangement with the foreign AE cannot be treated as an international transaction. It also directed the AO to allow set-off of brought-forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation in accordance with law.
The ITAT held that registration under Section 12AB could not be rejected without identifying a specific “specified violation” under the statutory framework. It remanded the matter for fresh examination after finding the order lacked clear and reasoned findings.
