ITAT Delhi held that cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be added as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since sufficient explanation of source of cash deposit provided by the assessee. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained since the cash deposit is already added while filing the return of income under the head other sources. Accordingly, addition set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained since it is reasonably explained that deposit is out of its business proceeds. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside and appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that assessments under section 153C of the Income Tax Act stands vitiated in law since there is complete absence of proper and independent satisfaction as required u/s. 153C. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The ITAT Pune has sent back a Rs. 28.71 lakh unexplained cash deposit case to the CIT(A), granting the assessee a fresh opportunity due to alleged unawareness of proceedings.
The ITAT has remanded a trust’s application for regular registration after the CIT(E) rejected it as premature. The tribunal ruled the law doesn’t bar early applications and cited a previous judgment.
ITAT Delhi sends Anil Kumar Chauhan’s Rs. 7.17 Cr. tax addition case back to the AO. The tribunal cited a violation of natural justice, allowing new evidence.
ITAT Kolkata has ruled a reassessment notice time-barred for income below ₹50 lakh. The tribunal found the notice was issued beyond the three-year limit for AY 2018-19.
ITAT Kolkata has allowed a Sikkimese proprietor to claim a tax exemption u/s 10(26AAA) despite using a wrong PAN. The tribunal cited a Supreme Court judgment.
Chandigarh ITAT in Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria vs ITO held that FMV as on 1 April 2001 can be adopted as cost of acquisition for property received as gift. PCIT’s reliance on stamp duty value at the time of gift deed (2009) was rejected.
