ITAT Mumbai quashes penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for three assessees due to defective notices and debatable issues in light of Bombay High Court precedents.
ITAT Mumbai upholds CIT(A)’s decision favoring Jay Bharat Mehta, rejecting unexplained cash credit addition and affirming Section 54F deduction eligibility.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards section 68 of the Income Tax Act deleted as assessee discharged initial onus by proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
In the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2001-02, the Coordinate Bench had upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to allow 40% of the damages under Section 14B of the Act as compensatory while treating the balance 60% as penal in nature and disallowing the same.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) on alleged bogus LTCG untenable since disallowance is based on general report of the investigation wing. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted due to lack of adequate evidence disallowance set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that only profit embedded to creditors written off and discount receipts is needed to be added since both i.e. creditors written off and discount receipts are inextricably linked with business of assessee. Hence, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that cash collected from customers for purchase of stamp papers were deposited in bank hence source of cash deposits duly explained. Thus, addition towards unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act not justified.
ITAT Chennai held that estimation of 8% as income on the total receipt by AO is justifiable since assessee failed to substantiate its claim of earning 5% commission on total receipt. Accordingly, addition confirmed and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained cash deposits not justified as CIT(A) has partly accepted the cash book and partly rejected the cash book without assigning any reason. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai sets aside ex-parte CIT(A) order on ₹33 lakh cash deposit, citing natural justice and Section 250(6) violations. Case remanded for fresh adjudication.
