ITAT Nagpur remands Mohd. Siraj’s appeal to CIT(A), allowing him a fresh chance to prove large bank deposits belonged to his employer, not him.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a Rs.7 lakh addition made to a non-resident Indian, ruling that his explanation for property investment was plausible, with funds sourced from NRE account withdrawals and jewelry sales.
The ITAT Mumbai upheld the deletion of a Rs.49 lakh addition made to Kolar Paper Mills for a CSR donation. The court ruled that the company had already disallowed the expenditure and had not claimed any deductions, thus preventing double taxation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, has quashed the assessment against Pawan Kumar Agrawal, ruling that the mandatory prior approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Cochin has ruled that a charitable trust’s belated return filing for AY 2014-15 is not a valid reason to deny an exemption under Section 11. The court clarified that the condition for timely filing became a legal requirement only from AY 2018-19.
PCIT’s revision order on Gajanand Financial Consultancy’s protective addition was quashed by ITAT Nagpur. The Tribunal ruled the AO made a detailed enquiry, and protective additions can’t be revised when substantive ones exist.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside a Rs.35.05 crore income addition to Keezhuparamba Service Co-operative Bank. The court remanded the matter for fresh verification, noting that the Assessing Officer mistakenly clubbed members’ deposits with share capital.
The Cochin ITAT has set aside an addition under Section 68, ruling that a taxpayer’s claim of transferring funds from a housing loan to a capital account requires further verification. The court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Raipur, in case of Manish Kumar Jain vs. ITO, ruled that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal based solely on a delay.
The ITAT Pune ruled in the case of Nanasaheb Bhagawan Sasar vs. ITO that an assessee is entitled to a full Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit, even if the buyer mistakenly deducted the entire amount in the assessee’s name for a joint property sale.
