Bangalore ITAT restored a case involving Rs.1.49 crore in unexplained cash deposits for fresh assessment, directing the AO to re-examine the source and the CIT(A)’s application of the peak credit method.
ITAT restores Sunil Shigli’s appeal after CIT(A) summarily dismissed it over a supposed 4-day delay. Tribunal directs re-examination of delay and adjudication on merits of HRA and Chapter VIA addition.
ITAT Bangalore held that non-compliance with tax notices due to notices being sent to wrong email IDs and the demise of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant constitutes sufficient cause. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication
Bangalore ITAT restricted the s.69A unexplained cash addition for non-filer Umesh Babu to the peak credit of Rs.12.25 lakhs, rejecting the Rs.ｹ57.10 lakhs addition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the NFAC’s order against Puvvada Veera Kumar, finding that the CIT(A) failed to consider detailed written submissions uploaded to the portal, necessitating a de novo appeal hearing.
Bangalore ITAT set aside PCIT’s s.263 order, ruling that difference of opinion on profit estimation rate (6% vs 8%) for a contractor isn’t grounds for revision.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that income belongs to the person who actually earned it. Purchases and sales recorded by son, with audited accounts, barred addition in father’s hands.
The ITAT Bangalore allowed appeals by Mohammad Abdul Najeeb and others, ruling that the non-communication of reasons and lack of hearing opportunity before issuing a Section 127 jurisdiction transfer order rendered the subsequent search assessments
Bangalore ITAT rejected PR consultant’s revised return, ruling that agency business is excluded from presumptive taxation under s.44AD(6)(iii). Original income confirmed.
CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed appeal alleging no submissions; ITAT noted documents were filed and directed fresh consideration, upholding principles of natural justice.
