ITAT Agra held that an inadvertent disclosure of exempt income under “income from other sources” could not deny exemption to an educational institution. The Tribunal directed rectification of the tax demand after verifying eligibility under Section 10(23C)(iiiab).
The ITAT Agra upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording reasons for dissatisfaction. The Tribunal reiterated that such satisfaction is mandatory before invoking Rule 8D.
he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
ITAT Agra held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act before setting off carry forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee succeeds on this ground.
ITAT held that scrap trading does not follow a fixed sales pattern and income declared under Section 44AD cannot be rejected on suspicion. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of ₹3.67 crore added as unexplained cash credit from Singapore art exhibition sales. It held that detailed export, remittance, and bank evidence fully established the genuineness and source of funds.
The dispute examined whether loan interest used to buy virtual digital assets could be deducted. The ruling held that such interest forms part of cost of acquisition and is allowable despite Section 115BBH restrictions.
The ITAT ruled that unexplained cash can only be assessed in the year in which it is seized. An addition made in an incorrect assessment year is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
Unexplained cash deposits and rent discrepancies led to rejection of books under section 145(3). However, the Tribunal held that estimating profits at 1% was excessive and moderated it to 0.50%.
The tax authorities disallowed Bhandara expenses assuming a religious character without concrete evidence. The Tribunal held that mere suspicion cannot override the accepted fact of food being provided to the needy.
