The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the addition of ₹2.28 crore LTCG, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any independent inquiry or verify the assessees documentary evidence before treating the gain as bogus. The Tribunal restored the case, emphasizing that an allegation of penny stock misuse cannot be sustained merely on third-party information without a proper, on-merits examination of the assessees documentation.
ITAT Rajkot directs CIT(E) to reconsider 80G approval for Meena Samaj Seva Trust, confirming trusts serving Scheduled Tribes are not barred under Section 80G(5).
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favour of Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, holding that an FPI claiming capital gains exemption under the India-Singapore DTAA (Article 13) cannot be forced to set off prior year’s brought-forward losses against that exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
The ITAT Pune dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling against additions for ICDS adjustments, provision reversals (including liquidated damages and project costs), and Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance. The Tribunal held that subsequent reversal of provisions cannot be taxed again if the original provision was disallowed in earlier years, thereby preventing double taxation and upholding consistent accounting treatment.
In a key ruling, ITAT Hyderabad restored an appeal that the CIT(A) had dismissed for non-prosecution, as the NFAC was found to have incorrectly used an email address other than the one specified by the assessee in Form 35. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Courts mandate for a liberal approach to condoning the resulting 98-day delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to AO since additional evidences submitted by the assessee needs to be verified by lower authorities.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT without considering submissions filed by the assessee amounts to non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter is remitted back to PCIT to consider the submissions and pass a speaking order.
ITAT Delhi held that enhancement made by CIT(A) in absence of show cause notice issued under section 251 of the Income Tax Act is wholly unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and enhancement is quashed.
