The Tribunal upheld that a provision made for arrears of VDA, PFD, and HRA pursuant to a High Court directive represented a crystallized liability. Since the assessee’s obligation was judicially enforceable, the expenditure was allowable. Disallowance was correctly limited to 30% under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS non-compliance.
ITAT Delhi held that commission earned by a cooperative society from marketing sugarcane grown by its members qualifies as business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii), not as income from other sources.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment orders issued outside the Faceless Scheme and without a valid DIN were void ab initio, striking down additions under Sections 69A/69B.
The ITAT Rajkot deleted a ₹61 lakh addition made under Section 69A, ruling the funds belonged to clients of the assessee who acted as a sub-share broker. The Tribunal held that Section 69A is inapplicable as the assessee was not the owner of the money, which was meant for derivative transactions.
The Tribunal found that additions made purely on estimated profit percentages cannot attract concealment penalty. Since no specific inaccuracy or suppression was proven, ITAT deleted the penalty in full. The ruling aligns with precedents from Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat High Courts.
ITAT Delhi deleted a ₹47 lakh bogus LTCG addition, holding that ‘human probability’ cannot override transactions conducted through stock exchange, demat, and banking channels. Mere high profit does not make a transaction bogus.
Mumbai ITAT deleted a ₹4.20 lakh addition, quashing the reassessment because the addition was based solely on uncorroborated, retracted search statements and “dumb documents.” The tribunal ruled that once retracted, statements lose evidentiary value without independent verification.
The ITAT Panaji set aside the NFAC order that confirmed a ₹9.81 crore tax addition after finding the NFAC failed to consider the assessees detailed online submissions. The key takeaway is that an adverse order passed without considering key submissions is invalid and violates natural justice principles.
PCIT initiated a Section 263 revision over AO’s failure to disallow cash payments under Section 40A(3). ITAT held that since AO had conducted adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view, revision was an invalid overreach and quashed order. The ruling affirms that a mere difference in opinion doesn’t satisfy twin conditions for invoking Section 263.
The PCIT challenged the assessment order under Section 263 over the AO’s acceptance of goodwill depreciation, warranty provision, and CSR-linked 80G deduction. The ITAT quashed the revision, finding the AO conducted due inquiry and adopted a plausible legal view on all three claims. The ruling confirms that an assessment order based on due inquiry cannot be revised merely on a difference of opinion.
