ITAT Ahmedabad restored a case where the CIT(A) upheld a major loss disallowance stemming from client code modification (CCM) without proper hearing. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) failed to consider that the addition was based on unsubstantiated claims from a report, directing a fresh hearing to examine evidence of genuine trading.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that the lower authorities were wrong to confirm the addition for foreign currency found during the search, as the assessee provided a chart detailing various family trips abroad. The decision confirms that, in the absence of contrary evidence by the Revenue, a plausible explanation supported by travel records is enough to discharge the burden of proof.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided only after the quantum appeal is finalized.
The ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the deletion of a Rs.2.23 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that the assessee had fully discharged the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors. Since complete evidence (confirmations, PAN, ITRs, bank statements) was filed and no adverse material was found, the addition could not be sustained.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that while purchases from a blacklisted entity were not fully proven, the entire amount couldn’t be added to income as corresponding sales were accepted. Following Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a 5% profit markup over the declared Gross Profit rate of 12.63%, thereby deleting the majority of the original Rs. 92,20,100 addition.
The Base Metal Chemicals vs ACIT case examines the validity of large tax additions made by the AO on conversion charges, partner payments, under-invoiced sales, and stock valuation. The key issue was whether the additions were based on commercial reality or mere presumption.
The ITAT set aside the mechanical rejection of the Form 10AB application and the cancellation of the provisional 80G approval, emphasizing substance over form. The provisional approval remains valid until the CIT(E) passes a fresh order after verifying the trust’s charitable activities.
The Tribunal allowed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that suspicion alone cannot lead to an addition under section 69A, especially when sales records and VAT returns were furnished. The ruling confirmed that high cash sales were justified as per the Government’s notification allowing petrol pumps to accept demonetised notes.
The Tribunal found the principles of natural justice were violated when the assessee, a villager unfamiliar with e-proceedings, was denied the opportunity to challenge the property’s stamp duty valuation and request a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT dismissed an assessee’s quantum appeal, confirming that a ₹10.42 Cr write-off for decommissioned windmills was a capital loss, not a revenue deduction. Since the trust offered this as business income, the ITAT held the only permissible treatment was adjustment in the block of assets.
