The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The assessee had failed to comply with notices and did not provide evidence for deductions. All additions made by the Assessing Officer, including capital gains and salary income, were upheld.
The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued manually by the JAO violates the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that any Section 148 or 148A notice must originate only from the faceless system, making the JAO-issued notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was issued 45 days beyond the maximum permissible period under Rajeev Bansal (SC), making the 148 notice invalid. Applying the deemed-notice framework of Ashish Agarwal, it ruled that the AO had “zero surviving days” to act. The reassessment was quashed for being issued after the statutory outer limit.
The Tribunal condoned an 868-day delay arising from wrong professional advice and Covid-related extensions, holding that the assessee showed sufficient cause. It ruled that the 50C addition under Section 153A lacked incriminating material and directed a full de-novo review.
The ITAT held that rejection of Section 80G registration without specific reasons is unsustainable and directed a fresh, reasoned consideration by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed filing was bona fide due to disputes and legal ambiguities, and the declared income was fully accepted. No penalty under Section 270A was warranted.
The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
The ITAT Hyderabad allowed claims for charitable expenditures after verifying vouchers and accounts, emphasizing that disallowances cannot be made without substantive evidence.
The ITAT Hyderabad ruled that unexplained partner capital contributions cannot be treated as income of the firm. Only individual partners’ contributions can be assessed, overturning a Rs. 3.26 crore addition.
ITAT Hyderabad held that ad hoc disallowance of commission expense cannot be sustained since assessee has substantiated commission payment with relevant evidence. Further, mere non-submission of certain bills and vouchers cannot be reason for ad hoc disallowance of land and development expenditure.
