In a recent order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has provided a significant verdict in the case of Rajesh Shivji Shah vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the assessment year 2011-12.
The ITAT in Mumbai has deleted an income tax addition against Rahul M. Dalmia, ruling that the purchases were genuine. The court found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and distinguished the case from other precedents.
ITAT Hyderabad upheld a revision order denying capital gains exemption, citing an unregistered sale agreement between a husband and wife as insufficient proof.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that cash deposits in a bank account, which are part of business receipts already covered by presumptive tax under Section 44AD, cannot be added as unexplained cash credits.
Tribunal confirmed that donations routed as consideration for corporate liaisoning, personal expenses of promoters, and shell transactions justify cancellation of charitable registration from inception
ITAT Chennai ruled that a reassessment initiated by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after March 29, 2022, was invalid, making the subsequent revision order by the PCIT equally void.
ITAT Chennai quashed a reassessment notice, ruling that an Assessing Officer cannot reopen a case after four years based on a review of documents already on file without new, tangible material.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards cash deposits not reflected in bank account details cannot be sustained since the income doesn’t belong to assessee in the individual status but the income belong to HUF of the assessee.
ITAT Chennai allows a partnership firm to claim a bad debt deduction of ₹23.10 lakh, ruling that losses from employee fraud are a genuine business loss. The decision highlights that an FIR and book entries are sufficient evidence.
Tribunal remanded case to AO, allowing assessee to substantiate capital introduced from sale of agricultural lands with proper documents like patta, chitta, and adangal.
