The ITAT ruled that a cash deposit addition under 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot stand if the source is accepted as business turnover and presumptive profit under Sec.44AD is declared. The tribunal accepted the taxpayers explanation of cash deposits from mobile phone sales, linking them to credit card purchases, but directed an 8% profit rate be applied to the turnover.
The ITAT ruled the entire reassessment void ab initio because the 148 notice, issued after March 29, 2022, was served by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) instead of the mandatory Faceless AO (FAO). Following High Court precedent, the tribunal held that this is a non-curable jurisdictional defect that voids the notice and the subsequent assessment.
The ITAT voided multiple search assessments because the statutory approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and without independent application of mind. The Tribunal emphasized that a single, proforma approval for 42 assessment orders across multiple assessees, lacking specific facts or reasoning, renders the entire assessment void ab initio.
Upholding a crucial legal principle, the ITAT ruled that where a businesss income is estimated on a percentage-of-turnover basis, any additions made under 68 for items like unsecured loans or capital on the basis of unverified entries must be deleted. The decision provides relief by confirming that estimated net profit covers the source of cash and capital.
Tribunal ruled that registration under Section 12AB can be cancelled only upon proven specified violations, not on suspicion or ongoing assessments, restoring society’s registration.
The ITAT Chandigarh quashed income tax assessments under Section 153A, ruling that the mandatory Section 153D approval was mechanical and invalid. The Tribunal held that the approving authority failed to apply independent reasoning, using a ‘rubber stamp’ proforma for multiple assessees without considering specific facts or seized material, thus making the entire assessment void ab initio.
The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessees entire claim for business expenses, deleting a large proportionate disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee was an active working partner in multiple firms and a proprietor, the expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and the revenue failed to prove they were non-genuine.
The ITAT Chennai directed the CIT(E) to reconsider a trusts 80G application on merits, ruling it couldnt be rejected mechanically on grounds of delay. The Tribunal held that since the Finance Act, 2024 amendment (Section 80G(5)(iv)) allowing trusts to apply at any time took effect while the application was pending, the CIT(E) was bound to apply the amended, flexible law.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an order that attempted to rectify an assessment to tax a survey disclosure under Section 69A/115BBE instead of normal business income. The Tribunal ruled that the question of classifying the already accounted income as business receipts versus unexplained money is a debatable issue that falls outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 154.
The ITAT Chennai deleted the disallowance of claimed agricultural income, ruling that revenue from the sale of eucalyptus trees grown on the assessees agricultural land is exempt under Section 2(1A). The Tribunal held that the assessee performed both basic and subsequent agricultural operations, and the AOs mere doubt about visible maintenance was insufficient to deny the exemption.
