The Tribunal deleted Rs. 26.73 lakhs added under Section 69A, holding that the deposit was from agricultural income and prior withdrawals. Revenue failed to disprove the assessee’s explanation, confirming that farmers’ cash deposits need proper evaluation.
The tribunal found that the income addition of ₹80 lakh was incorrectly attributed to the assessee personally instead of the company, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer failed to grant the minimum seven days’ time under section 148A(b), making the entire process unsustainable.
Tribunal ruled that examining purchases was permissible under limited scrutiny for sales mismatch. However, the 3% profit estimation was found arbitrary and sent back for fresh computation.
ITAT held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied where the audit report in Form 10B was filed before CPC processed the return, even if the return itself was belated.
ITAT ruled that protective addition of Rs.27.74 lakh in the assessee’s hands was unjustified as the real owners of the seized gold had already been assessed.
The Tribunal deleted Rs. 1.03 crore added under Section 69A, holding that funds remitted from the USA originated from disclosed long-term capital gains. Detailed bank records and SWIFT copies substantiated the source beyond doubt.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational notice for reassessment was invalid, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAC could not stand and was quashed.
The issue was whether an outstanding loan could be taxed as deemed dividend in a year when no loan was received. The Tribunal held that the decisive factor is the year of payment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
ITAT Jaipur allows full leave encashment of ₹12.13 lakh under Section 10(10AA), citing CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 and judicial precedents.
