TAT Delhi rules that deletion of unsecured loan additions under Section 68 is procedurally flawed if AO is denied opportunity to verify fresh evidence. Matter remanded for de novo examination.
The ITAT set aside the entire reassessment, holding that a valid notice is a mandatory jurisdictional step, citing the Supreme Court’s Hotel Blue Moon ruling. Since the two notices issued were defective (one premature, the other beyond the statutory time limit), the assessment was deemed illegal.
The issue was a ad-hoc addition on cash deposits sustained by the due to the absence of direct source-to-deposit correlation. The ITAT deleted the addition, holding that once the overall source (like agricultural or business income) is accepted on merits, does not require mathematical one-to-one matching.
ITAT Mumbai set aside orders taxing a money changer’s Rs.219 crore turnover, holding that neither u/s 68 addition nor arbitrary profit estimation is valid without verifying recreated books.
Mumbai ITAT affirmed the deletion of a ₹2.74 crore F&O loss addition under Section 153A for an unabated year. The addition, based only on the post-search “Project Falcon” report, was void as no incriminating material was found during the search itself, following the Supreme Court’s mandate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad ruled in Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Jivrajpark Vs CIT (Exemption) that a trust with composite, charitable, and incidental religious objects cannot be denied 80G registration merely because one object seems religious.
The ITAT reaffirmed that genuine statutory deductions cannot be denied solely due to technical defects or the absence of a specific column in the ITR form. The Tribunal directed the to allow the deductions, including beyond the 10% limit for eligible specified donations.
The ITAT set aside the crore addition, ruling that lower authorities acted mechanically by rejecting detailed evidence like invoices, bank statements, and vendor confirmations. The Tribunal mandated a remand, emphasizing that suspicion is not a valid basis for disallowance when substantial documentary proof is on record.
Mumbai ITAT clarified that perpetual leasehold rights are equivalent to ownership for the purpose of a specified agreement” under Section 45(5A)/194-IC, requiring 10% TDS on JDA monetary payments.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that a genuine business loss from penny stock trading, supported by contract notes and demat records, cannot be disallowed based solely on a third-party statement or generic investigation report.
