ITAT held reassessment invalid where AO acted on belated return without issuing mandatory 143(2) notice. Entire reassessment under sections 144/147 was quashed despite late filing of return.
CIT(A) wrongly rejected the assessee’s rectification petition under section 154 despite portal evidence. ITAT restored the appeal for fresh adjudication with full opportunity to submit evidence.
Tribunal directed AO to maintain uniformity among co-owners in computing capital gains. While circle rate under section 50C applies, the cost of acquisition should follow the previously accepted benchmark of ₹50,000 per bigha.
ITAT Agra held that entire TDS deducted on maturity of bond is allowable since assessee has already offered interest income on accrual basis. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed and TDS credit granted.
ITAT Agra held that ₹8.84 crore deposited and withdrawn from bank accounts used for ATM cash replenishment could not be treated as unexplained money of the employee. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts belonged to Punjab & Sind Bank.
The Tribunal found that additions made purely on estimated profit percentages cannot attract concealment penalty. Since no specific inaccuracy or suppression was proven, ITAT deleted the penalty in full. The ruling aligns with precedents from Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana, and Gujarat High Courts.
ITAT Agra remanded a TDS short-deduction case for the second time, finding that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to comply with the Tribunal’s earlier binding directions to verify if deductees had paid taxes.
ITAT Agra granted partial relief on a cash deposit addition, accepting ₹60,000 as explained, ruling that money received back from previous advances through banking channels constitutes the assessee’s own money returned.
ITAT Agra deleted additions on gifts received from real sisters, holding that when identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are proven, Section 68 cannot apply to family gifts made out of natural affection.
ITAT Agra held that amount deposited during demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained income since the amount is deposited out of genuine cash sales. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
