In a case involving unexplained cash deposits, ITAT Agra restored appeal to AO, emphasizing need to examine documentary evidence of sale proceeds from agricultural land before confirming additions.
The ITAT Pune Bench set aside an ex-parte capital gains order, granting a non-filer taxpayer a final chance to present evidence for ₹2.03 Cr in land improvement costs to the CIT(A).
ITAT Raipur dismisses an appeal against an Income Tax penalty order as withdrawn, as the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, with a caveat for restoration if the settlement fails.
ITAT Jabalpur partially allowed Dayanand Paryani’s appeal, directing AO to replace a full Rs. 29,38,600/− cash credit addition with a 12% presumptive income rate, citing failure to calculate peak credit.
The ITAT set aside a massive unexplained investment addition made on a joint bank account, ruling that the CIT(A) failed to consider vital documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case is remanded to the AO for fresh verification of the documents, which claim the deposits were company business, not personal income.
ITAT Lucknow held that rectification under Section 154 cannot be invoked when a trust deed does not specify beneficiaries’ shares. Since the shares were indeterminate, taxation at the maximum marginal rate under Section 164 was rightly applied.
Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the Rs.153C notice against VPR Mining for AY 2018-19 was void ab initio. The court held that without incriminating material pertaining to the relevant year, an assessment based solely on external GST data, independent of the original search and seizure, is invalid.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of a ₹72 crore addition made under Section 143(1) by the CPC, which resulted from a tax auditor’s inadvertent reporting error in Form 3CD (using the opening instead of the closing inventory). The ruling established that the CIT(A) can directly verify evidence and grant relief for such genuine clerical mistakes without remanding the case to the AO.
The Tribunal deleted the unexplained investment (Section 69) and cash interest (Section 69A) additions, emphasizing that unsigned, vague slips and digital data, where the parties were not confronted and no independent verification was done, have no evidentiary value in search assessment law. This aligns with Supreme Court rulings on the invalidity of additions based on non-speaking loose sheets.
ITAT Delhi remands trust registration u/s 12A denial after finding the rejection was ex-parte and non-compliance was due to the previous counsel’s failure.
