The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalised for mistakes of his CA and condoned a two-year delay. The matter was remanded for de novo assessment, reaffirming natural justice principles.
A genuine FTC claim of ₹1.03 crore was partly disallowed due to a technical placement error in Form 67. The Tribunal restored the claim and sent it to the AO for verification and proper allowance.
ITAT held that cash sales forming part of disclosed turnover cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credits. The ruling confirms that Section 68 does not apply when books are intact and evidence supports the sales.
Evidence demonstrated frequent withdrawals and redeposits across years, confirming the legitimacy of the cash held. The Tribunal ruled that the deposits were fully explained, warranting removal of the Section 69A/115BBE addition.
ITAT held that the assessee operated as a commission agent, not a trader, making Section 44AD inapplicable. A reasonable 5% estimation on cash deposits was upheld.
The ITAT ruled that unresolved legal grounds—especially on reassessment validity—must first be decided by the CIT(A). The ₹3.32 crore Section 69A addition is remanded for proper adjudication.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a ₹305.49 crore penalty imposed on a bank, ruling that section 115JB (MAT) does not apply to banks under the Banking Regulation Act. The decision emphasizes that penalties linked to inapplicable provisions cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the AO found no fabricated or false documents for agricultural or tuition income. Since evidence existed but was incomplete, ITAT applied a 10% estimate and cut the addition drastically.
Cane Deveopment Council Rohana Kalan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Four appeals filed by two assessees were heard together due to similarity in facts, with one matter treated as the lead case. The assessee challenged the penalty […]
ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a charitable trust’s exemption under Sections 11 and 12 cannot be denied due to a technical mismatch in reporting new 12AB registration in the ITR. The substantive validity of the original 12A registration ensures continuity of exemption.
