ITAT Delhi allows Henna Industries’ appeal, deleting a Rs. 9.30 lakh disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1), confirming it was due to a clerical mistake in the tax audit report.
ITAT Ahmedabad restores the Rs. 41.02 lakh unexplained deposits case to the AO for de-novo assessment, allowing additional evidence and citing the assessee’s illiteracy.
The ITAT Pune condoned a 631-day delay citing financial seizure under the Mst. Katiji principle, restoring the appeal concerning Rs. 29 Lakh interest disallowance and ad-hoc cash addition back to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing.
ITAT Jabalpur dismissed the Revenue’s appeal regarding the eligibility of Section 80P deduction for a co-operative society’s Business Correspondent income, citing the CBDT’s revised monetary limit for appeals.
The ITAT Raipur condoned a 93-day delay citing the medical student’s hectic schedule and remanded the Rs. 11,82,000/− unexplained cash deposit addition under Section 69A to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing.
In the case of Shobha Welfare Society Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, partly allowed an appeal, challenging a Rs. 64,98,470 addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Raipur ruled that the NFAC cannot dismiss a tax appeal solely for delay without examining its merits, citing CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra. Case remanded.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee’s appeal, remanding the Section 69C addition for verification and deleting the Section 80C disallowance, emphasizing submission of proper evidence and opportunity of hearing.
ITAT Kolkata rules that additions under Section 153A cannot be made without incriminating material, citing the Supreme Court’s Abhisar Buildwell judgment.
The Revenue argued that interest income from an Associated Enterprise (AE) should be taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate MMR by invoking Article 12(6) of the DTAA} (PE exclusion). The Tribunal upheld the 15% DTAA rate, confirming that since the assessee has no PE in India, the exclusionary clause 12(6) does not apply, and the interest is a debt-claim under Article 12(4).
