Tribunal held that delays caused by pandemic disruptions and internal management-auditor communication issues constitute reasonable cause under Section 274, deleting ₹2.42 lakh penalty.
The addition was based on a loose paper that did not match Yes Bank loan details or HMA ledger figures. The Tribunal upheld that such uncorroborated papers cannot sustain a 69C addition, especially when business had not yet commenced. The takeaway is that tax additions must be backed by verifiable evidence, not estimations on loose sheets.
ITAT Agra held that purchases made by a tenant cannot be attributed to the landlord, deleting ₹2.50 crore addition for alleged bogus meat purchases, emphasizing factual accuracy in assessments.
The Tribunal held that even extraordinary circumstances like COVID-19 do not justify appeals filed after limitation expiry. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed due to failure to provide cogent reasons or affidavits supporting the delay.
ITAT Pune ruled that income from temporarily letting sugar factory assets is business income, not Income from Other Sources, allowing set-off of brought-forward losses.
Delhi ITAT held that adding hypothetical interest on security deposits to compute ALV is impermissible. The decision reverses lower authorities, confirming that only real contractual rent counts as income under section 23(1).
The Tribunal held that section 54 relief cannot be denied merely because the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. It ruled that actual investment of capital gains is the key requirement.
Tribunal held that a provision for bad debts need not be routed through the Profit & Loss account in the first eligible year under Section 36(1)(viia). The disallowance was deleted as the audited statements reflected the provision as on 31.03.2007.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO under Sections 148A(b) and 148 after the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022, is without jurisdiction and void. The reassessment order based on such notice was consequently quashed. This ruling reinforces the mandatory requirement for faceless reassessment under the 2022 scheme.
Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
