ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed since donation was given to Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust whose approval expired on 31.03.2006. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
The ITAT deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that once the capital gains deductions (Section 54EC/54F) are substantially allowed in the quantum appeal, there’s no concealment of income. The Tribunal emphasized that filing a belated return within Section 139(4) does not automatically invalidate a genuine deduction claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
Tribunal held that goodwill arising from court-approved amalgamation is a depreciable intangible asset. AO & CIT(A)’s disallowance based on colourable device allegation was quashed.
The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that cash deposits of Rs.9.37 crore made by Arvindbhai Jewellers during demonetisation were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer’s rejection of books under Section 145(3) was invalid, as there was no defect in the quantitative stock register, and suspicion alone cannot be a basis for addition.
The Tribunal accepted documentary evidence, including a director’s affidavit and Company Law Board (CLB) orders, as credible proof of sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The case was restored, ensuring the assessee gets an opportunity to contest the 68 and House Property income additions.
Upholding the CIT(A)’s decision, the ITAT confirmed that the charitable trusts claim for exemption on ₹2.45 crore application of income could not be denied. The ruling establishes that the registration granted under Section 12AA, even if initially delayed, holds legal force for the current assessment year, nullifying the AOs attempt to tax voluntary contributions.
ITAT quashes Rs.8.8 Cr penalty u/s 271G on Atul Ltd.. Penalty applies for non-furnishing TP docs, not for TPO’s rejection of the assessee’s benchmarking method. Cites Delhi HC precedent.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, including a ₹75 lakh unexplained cash advance addition, after finding that the earlier dismissal was based purely on a procedural technicality. The ruling emphasizes that the CIT(A) must use their wide powers to adjudicate on merits and cannot reject an appeal at the threshold.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the AO’s acceptance of ₹12.18 lakh exempt LTCG on Kushal Tradelink shares was based on a detailed inquiry and a plausible view. The Tribunal held that revision is invalid when the AO conducts due diligence, finds no adverse material to link the assessee to price rigging, and takes a possible view on the evidence.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
