The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
The Assessing Officer examined the audited books, balance sheet, and supporting records but did not identify any discrepancy or reject the accounts. ITAT held that, in such circumstances, invoking Section 115BBE was unsustainable.
The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the leave encashment exemption claim. The assessee was directed to substantiate the claim with supporting material.
The ITAT Agra held that the tax authorities failed to consider earlier cash withdrawals while treating demonetization deposits as unexplained. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs.1 lakh and granted substantial relief to the assessee.
The ITAT held that exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was available from AY 2018-19 because an earlier coordinate bench had already directed grant of approval. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial discipline required adherence to its previous ruling.
Agra ITAT held that the bank was liable under Section 201 for non-deduction of TDS on LFC involving foreign travel because no branch-specific interim judicial order was produced. The Tribunal distinguished earlier rulings that had granted relief based on specific High Court directions.
ITAT Agra held that reopening beyond three years under Section 149 was invalid because the final escapement of income determined by the Assessing Officer was only Rs.27 lakh. The statutory threshold of Rs.50 lakh was therefore not satisfied.
The ITAT Agra held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where the assessee had already disclosed commission income in the income tax return. The Tribunal granted relief after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the declared income source.
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.
