The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of Harshang Kaushikkumar Rami vs ITO to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of Rs. 5 crore cash deposits treated as unexplained income.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹1.11 crore addition, holding that ordinary dunnage used by Central Warehousing Corporation is a revenue expense, following rulings from earlier years.
ITAT Mumbai held that National Payments Corporation of India carries out activities which has been recognized as charitable under category of advancement of object for general public utility. Accordingly, revisionary order u/s. 263 quashed as issue already dealt in detail by AO.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot discard a registered valuer’s report without referring the matter to a Departmental Valuation Officer. The AO’s addition was set aside, and the fair market value must be recomputed based on the valuer’s report.
ITAT Mumbai upheld relief granted by CIT(A) to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, holding that the AO failed to record satisfaction before rejecting the assessee’s suo-moto disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal found the additional disallowance of ₹4.11 crore excessive and unsupported by evidence.
The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that penalty cannot be imposed where the assessee’s claim is based on a genuine interpretation of Section 44 and Rule 5 and involves a debatable issue.
The Tribunal directed estimation of income at 8% under Section 44AD after disallowing expenses due to lack of evidence in Friends Transport Carrier vs ITO.
The ITAT Lucknow held that the penalty imposed under Section 271C on NHAI was invalid as it was passed beyond the six-month limitation period and became unsustainable after deletion of the related addition.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case of a charitable trust whose exemption claim was rejected owing to mismatched registration details, directing a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The ITAT held that the PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 to substitute the AO’s plausible view, ruling that a business disallowance under Section 37(1) does not automatically become deemed income under Section 69C.
