ITAT Cuttack remanded a demonetization case back to CIT(A), granting legal heir of deceased assessee a fresh opportunity. Tribunal ruled that appeal, which involved factual verification of large cash deposits, should be adjudicated on merits after allowing heir to furnish supporting documents.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld PCIT’s revision under Section 263 because AO wrongly allowed a cumulative Rs.28.72 crore foreign exchange loss on ECB repayment in one year. Tribunal ruled that under ICDS-VI and AS-11, forex differences must be recognized annually, making AO’s failure to verify compliance erroneous.
ITAT Indore deleted a Rs.1.46 crore addition made under Section 69C via rectification, ruling that the AO wrongly invoked the section. The commission payments reported in the audit form were a pass-through on behalf of clients, not the assessee’s claimed business expenditure, meaning the deduction of TDS didn’t imply an unrecorded expense.
ITAT Jaipur quashed an addition of Rs.14.47 lakh made under Section 69A because the assessment was framed by a Jaipur-based AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee residing in Sri Ganganagar. The Tribunal ruled that the objection to jurisdiction, raised by the assessee and unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the entire assessment order void ab initio.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
ITAT Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, holding that once substantive additions related to payments made by assessee were upheld by Tribunal and CIT(A) in cases of receiving parties, corresponding protective additions against assessee must be deleted.
ITO Vs Lalit Raghunathrao Shinde (ITAT Pune) Same Income, Two Hands? Not Allowed – ITAT Pune Quashes Double Taxation on 26AS Mismatch- Receipts Taxed in Company’s Books Can’t Be Reassessed in Individual’s Hands In a second round of litigation, ITAT Pune held that the same income cannot be taxed twice merely because of a mismatch in […]
ITAT Indore held that Deemed Dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is not taxable in hands of borrower-company who doesn’t hold shares in lender-company. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition set aside.
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
