Mumbai ITAT held that additions under Section 69 cannot survive where transactions are reflected in broker records and the source of funds is explained. Mere Client Code Modification information, without supporting evidence of tax evasion, is insufficient for making additions.
The Tribunal ruled that proportionate interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) cannot be sustained when the assessee has adequate reserves and interest-free funds to cover the advances. The Revenue failed to rebut the presumption recognized by higher courts.
ITAT Delhi remitted matters relating to sections 12AB and 80G after finding that the impugned orders did not clearly establish whether the assessee had filed replies or complied with notices. The cases were sent back for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from surplus funds deposited with banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Prudent deployment of business funds does not alter the nature of the income.
ITAT Delhi held that professional fees claimed for raising working capital limits could not be fully allowed as the taxpayer failed to establish their business relevance. However, considering the circumstances, only 50% of the expenditure was disallowed.
The ITAT Dehradun held that cash turnover in a petrol pump business during demonetisation could not be disregarded entirely. Considering the facts of the case, it reduced the addition under Section 68 to a lump sum of Rs.5 lakh.
The ITAT Dehradun remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC after observing that communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing system could not be ruled out. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
ITAT Surat held that additions relating to credit card payments and cash deposits could not be sustained when the assessee had explained them through sales of Amway products and commission income. The Tribunal found that these details had been overlooked by the tax authorities.
The ITAT Ranchi held that additions for unsecured loans could not survive in the lender’s hands when the recipient company had already disclosed the entire amount as income. The Revenue’s inability to rebut this factual finding led to dismissal of the appeals.
The Mumbai ITAT held that Section 263 revision was valid where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries into suspected bogus purchases. The ruling emphasizes that inadequate verification can render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.
