ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a ₹2.28 crore unexplained property investment case to the AO, allowing the assessee one final opportunity to provide supporting documents, while imposing a ₹5,000 cost for non-compliance.
ITAT Pune ruled that interest earned by a cooperative society from ICICI and HDFC banks retains its character as business income and qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a).
ITAT Delhi overturned a ₹2.61 crore addition under sections 144/147, noting notices were sent to the wrong address and the illiterate assessee was deprived of proper hearing.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a single approval for seven assessment years under Section 153D, issued without application of mind, is invalid, quashing the related assessment orders. The case underscores the need for careful, year-specific scrutiny.
Upholding the appellate authority, the Tribunal confirmed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed casually against a non-searched person. Statutory satisfaction requirements are mandatory, not procedural.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 must follow the faceless mechanism prescribed by the CBDT Scheme, 2022. Issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer vitiated the proceedings.
The issue was whether unsecured loans could still be treated as unexplained after repayment. The Tribunal held that once repayment is recorded by the AO, the addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside a Section 69C addition where subcontract payments were backed by bills, accounts, and TDS compliance. Non-filing of return by the recipient was held insufficient to brand the expense as bogus.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment received on resignation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10AA). Subsequent employment in the same year does not bar the relief.
Holding that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, the Tribunal restored the appeal. The case was remanded for reconsideration after granting opportunity.
