ITAT Mumbai deleted a ₹5.10 crore addition made under Section 69A for cash deposits during demonetisation, holding that once sales are recorded, audited, and taxed, further additions based on suspicion or third-party denials are unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai allowed a Rs.109.73 Cr relief, ruling that payments for centralized support services like HR and IT are not taxable as FTS or Royalty under India-Belgium DTAA. court held that these routine corporate activities lacked element of transferring technical knowledge or expertise.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the interest on nonrecoverable loans has not been recorded by the assessee and accordingly no deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act was claimed. Thus, addition made thereon is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment on the basis of factually incorrect facts and reasons without application of mind and without verification of facts cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed an appeal, restricting a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit addition to 1 lakh after the assessee, a salaried individual, explained the source as family savings from disclosed income. The Tribunal used a reasonable estimate approach, finding neither the assessee’s full explanation nor the Revenue’s complete rejection of evidence to be fully warranted, granting Rs. 9 lakh relief.
ITAT Hyderabad held that exemption under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act towards income derived from sale of foundation seeds as agricultural income allowed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed and order of CIT(A) upheld.
ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling the AO failed to levy the correct charge (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars), making the penalty unsustainable. finding the AO charged the assessee with concealment of income when the facts indicated furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT directed the CIT(E) to grant Section 12AB registration, ruling that mere land purchase is a preparatory step and not the commencement of charitable activities, the cancellation of a trust’s provisional registration, stating that technical errors and land acquisition cannot justify denying charitable status.
ITAT Mumbai set aside a ₹74 lakh unexplained investment addition, remanding the case to the AO after finding the AO ignored evidence and based the addition on an incorrect loan amount.
ITAT restored a trust’s 80G approval rejection, directing the CIT(E) to accept the application based on a CBDT circular extending the filing deadline and allowing clause correction. The ITAT ruled that a charitable trust can correct an error in its 80G application and confirmed that the filing deadline was extended by a subsequent CBDT circular.
