The Delhi ITAT held that informal WhatsApp conversations without corroborative evidence cannot establish unexplained investment under Section 69A. Since no excess jewellery, invoices, or payment proof were found, the addition was deleted.
Mumbai ITAT held that additions for alleged accommodation entries and commission income cannot be sustained solely on retracted statements and third-party Tally data without independent corroborative evidence.
The ITAT Amritsar reduced additions on unexplained cash deposits after considering that the assessee and his wife were senior citizens with no regular income source. The Tribunal allowed part of the deposits as past savings and household cash availability.
The ITAT Amritsar remanded a case involving denial of section 54B exemption where the assessee relied on Girdawari records to prove agricultural use of land. The Tribunal directed fresh verification of land records after finding disputes regarding cultivation entries in revenue documents.
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.
