ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed the disallowance of Rs.1.21 crore in subcontract expenses because the taxpayer failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to substantiate the payments, especially those linked to a director’s relative. The Tribunal upheld the AO’s finding that the genuineness of the expenditure was not satisfactorily proved.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.1.02 crore addition made under Section 68, rejecting the AO’s claim that a loan was an accommodation entry. The Tribunal ruled the loan was a genuine business transaction, used specifically for repaying an existing business loan, establishing the required nexus and purpose.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld adding Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as unexplained income under Section 68. The Tribunal ruled that the genuineness of penny stock transactions must be judged by the test of human probabilities.
The ITAT Ahmedabad sent back a case involving an addition of Rs.1.17 crore for unexplained cash deposits to the AO. The remand was necessary because the CIT(A) issued an ex-parte order without verifying the evidence submitted by the assessee.
ITAT ruled that the appeal dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating merits violated natural justice. The Tribunal directed a fresh review, emphasizing that taxing gross receipts without allowing legitimate expenditure is not in accordance with law.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that once sales have been recorded and taxed, they cannot again be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, deleting addition made on alleged accommodation entries.
Reversing lower authorities, ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that the assessee proved genuineness of loans and interest payments, allowing deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to make a newly purchased house habitable up to the date of occupation are eligible for Section 54 exemption, subject to verification.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹63.84 lakh addition under Section 68, observing that the assessee had already declared the same transactions as sales in audited accounts. Citing CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., it held that taxing such income again would lead to double taxation. The order reinforces that genuine recorded transactions cannot be recharacterized as unexplained cash credits.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under Section 270A(9) for an excess claim of deduction under Section 54F, ruling it was a computation error, not misreporting. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and the error didn’t involve fraud or suppression, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under the specific clauses of misreporting.
