ITAT condoned a significant seven-year delay in filing an appeal, recognizing assessee’s status as an NRI and his lack of awareness of assessment order as a bona fide cause. This ruling affirms the liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld annulment of a ₹1.73 crore assessment, ruling that Section 148 notice was issued in name of a person who had died four years earlier. Tribunal affirmed that proceedings against a deceased person are a fatal jurisdictional defect and void ab initio.
Tribunal condoned a 545-day delay caused by consultant negligence and remanded case to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, holding that assessee deserved a fair hearing on disallowance of deduction under Section 35(1)(ii).
The ITAT Ahmedabad reversed the CIT(A)’s deletion, upholding the addition of ₹6.73 lakh under Section 69A for bogus Long-Term Capital Gain from Safal Herbs Ltd. shares. The Tribunal ruled that the sudden investment in the obscure scrip, coupled with an unreasonable price rise, defied commercial logic and was an accommodation entry.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted an addition made due to a minor difference between a firm’s VAT returns and its books of account. Tribunal ruled that variation was a legitimate bookkeeping consequence of statutory ITC reversal under Gujarat VAT Rules and not evidence of inflated purchases.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that settlement payments in relation to patent disputes are allowable as business deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act since the same is not a penalty for an offence or for a purpose prohibited by law.
Additions of unsecured loans were sustained where creditworthiness was not proved, and relief upheld only for creditors who responded to notices under section 133(6) or furnished adequate documentation. Assessee’s case was reopened under section 148, where AO noticed unsecured loans aggregating to ₹14.94 crore from 164 creditors. On verification.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the addition of ₹1.77 Cr as unexplained cash credit, directing the Assessing Officer to verify evidence, including the assessee’s claim of exempt agricultural income.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance of interest expense after the real estate firm successfully proved that the mutual fund investment in question was made using interest-free own funds, not borrowed capital. The ruling emphasizes that disallowance requires evidence of borrowed funds being diverted for non-business purposes.
The ITAT deleted the entire addition made under Section 69A concerning demonetisation cash deposits, ruling in favor of a retired government employee. The Tribunal held that deposits from verifiable sources like gratuity, leave encashment, salary arrears, and loan repayment were genuinely explained and not unexplained income.
