ITAT Delhi held that protective addition in the hands of assessee deleted as substantial addition already made in the hands of the assessee’s wife and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Kolkata held that duty drawback is part of gross receipts for the purpose of calculation of ‘gross receipts’ under the presumptive taxation as per section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that merely because particular scrip is identified as penny stock it doesn’t mean all the transactions carried out in that scrip would be bogus. Addition, u/s. 68 deleted in absence of allegation of assessee being involved in any price rigging or price increase.
Tribunal in the case of Yegneswari General Traders vs. ITO held that kaccha arahtias are concerned, the turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purpose of 44AB.
ITAT Mumbai held that cash deposits were evidently business receipts, in absence of any other evidence of any other undisclosed source of income, the same cannot be considered as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition under section 68 liable to be set aside.
ITAT Surat held that rejection of application for regular approval of fund under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act as time barred not justified in terms of relaxation of time period as per CBDT Circular no. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024
ITAT Pune ruled on multiple appeals in Bharati Vidyapeeths case, addressing issues on exemptions under Sections 11, 13, 10(23C), and validity of Section 153C notices.
ITAT Delhi dismissed Revenue’s appeal in the case of Mehta Charitable Prajanalaya Trust, addressing issues related to charitable income and expense claims.
During the assessment proceedings, AO provided many opportunities to the Assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits made during the demonization period, however, the Assessee did not gave any satisfactory explanation during the assessment proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur held that time limit of filling the application for recognition u/s. 80G of the Act has been extended by the Board. Accordingly, benefit extension provided and matter restored to file of CIT(E).
