ITAT Ahmedabad upholds CIT(A)’s ruling dismissing Revenue’s appeal on unexplained cash credits. Genuineness confirmed in remand report for A.Y. 2016-17.
ITAT Ahmedabad allows registration under section 12AB, clarifying that section 13(1)(b) applies only at the assessment stage.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO and CIT(A) confirmed the addition since there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Thus, one more opportunity granted to the assessee to present its case however with a direction to deposit INR 2000 to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act without adequate inquire. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 rightly invoked as order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Form No. 35A signed by the Authorized Representative is only an irregularity which is curable u/s. 292B of the Income Tax Act and not an illegality. Thus, order set aside with a direction to pass order on merits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that taxation must be based on income that has actually accrued or arisen. Thus, addition towards decentralized grants merely routed assessee and simply transferred to other government agencies as per GOG’s directions is unsustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards bogus purchases made without proper verification of facts but just on the basis of suspicion, surmises and unverified information unjustified and liable to be deleted.
Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has held that in case assessee has not claimed any deduction in respect of its liability for payment of luxury tax, no question of addition under section 43B will arise.
The assessee is an NRI. During the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposits of Rs.6,00,000/- each in his bank account. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the AO questioned the source of these cash deposits.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
