The ITAT Raipur set aside penalties under Section 271(1)(c) levied on Sai Baba Sansthan for A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14, remanding the matter to the NFAC. The Tribunal held that the penalty’s survival is contingent upon the NFAC upholding the quantum additions on a de novo adjudication, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents.
ITAT Delhi quashes reassessment (AY 2016-17) and deletes Rs.2.25 Cr LTCG addition after finding that PCIT, not PCCIT, gave the required Section 151 approval.
ITAT confirmed GP and unsecured loan additions but deleted expense disallowances, ruling that rebates and receipt-backed rent are valid business expenses without a proven personal element.
ITAT Delhi upholds the Rs. 1 crore addition (u/s 68) confirmed by CIT(A), dismissing the assessees appeal due to its repeated failure to produce evidence for the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the purported loan. No evidence, no relief.
ITAT Delhi upholds the quashing of s. 153C assessment for AY 2012-13, ruling it’s beyond the 10-year block of limitation as per s. 153A/C and Delhi High Court precedent in Ojjus Medicare.
Jaipur ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeals in Nath Corporation, Royal Jewellers, and Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal cases, deleting Rs. 3.3 crore in penalties.
The ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeal of Svetlana Gorodinskaia, ruling that unexplained cash of ₹4,07,000/- found during a survey operation must be taxed as “unexplained money” under Section 69A and subjected to the higher tax rates of Section 115BBE
The ITAT Jaipur dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263. The Tribunal ruled that the income declared as excess stock during a survey must be taxed under Section 115BBE at a higher rate because the assessee failed to prove a direct nexus between the excess stock and suppressed regular business profits.
Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s estimation of 12.5% disallowance on ₹2.19 crore alleged bogus purchases, dismissing both assessee’s plea for reduction and Revenue’s demand for higher addition.
The court found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the declared profit rates were comparable to previous years, distinguishing the case from bogus purchases precedents.
