The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that the deletion of a ₹65 lakh addition under Section 68 was proper because the taxpayer established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal accepted that the loans were received and repaid through banking channels, backed by confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials.
ITAT Dehradun held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was invalid as the AO failed to specify whether it was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, showing lack of application of mind.
The Mumbai ITAT deleted the interest disallowance, applying the principle of consistency because the Revenue had previously accepted the assessee’s classification of net interest income under Income from Other Sources in earlier scrutiny assessments. The court found no justification to deviate from this accepted treatment for the current year.
The ITAT Delhi affirmed that a substantial increase in cash sales during demonetisation is insufficient grounds for a Section 68 addition when books of accounts are not found defective. The ruling confirms that genuine cash sales, properly recorded and matching stock/VAT records, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.
ITAT Delhi held that a donor cannot be denied deduction merely because the political party failed to record the donation. Verified payment through bank qualifies for 80GGC relief.
The ITAT Rajkot ruled that a political donation made through a banking channel cannot be disallowed if the donor provides complete evidence of the payment and the recipients registration. The Tribunal held that the donor cannot be penalized for the recipient political party’s failure to report the amount in its own return.
ITAT ruled that taxing cash deposits as unexplained credit under Section 68 when underlying sales are already accepted by AO and VAT authorities amounts to illegal double taxation. Decision confirmed that source of demonetised currency deposits was clearly traceable to regular business receipts.
The Delhi ITAT restored a reassessment appeal to the CIT(A) because evidence was rejected only for lack of a formal Rule 46A application. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence if the assessee files a proper application within a reasonable time.
The Delhi ITAT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the intimation issued on February 27, 2023, was invalid as the legal deadline expired on December 31, 2022. Once the mandatory limitation period expires, the tax authority loses jurisdiction.
An assessment adding ₹17.62 lakh was annulled as the income was below ₹50 lakh, limiting the period to three years under Section 149(1)(a). The Tribunal held the notice was time-barred as it was reissued after the statutory period’s surviving time of one day expired.
