The Assessee contested a cryptic CIT(A) order that failed to discuss documentation provided for Long Term Capital Gains and property investment sources. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the non-speaking order for de novo adjudication. This ruling reinforces the principle that every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons to ensure fairness and proper justice.
The tax addition on ₹17.63 lakh demonetization cash deposits was challenged as being sourced from earlier withdrawals and savings. The ITAT deleted the addition, emphasizing that prior, undisputed withdrawals cannot be taxed as unexplained money unless the tax authority proves alternate use. The key takeaway upholds the principle that redeposit of existing capital is not income under Section 69A.
Mohit Vijaykumar Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes Deemed Rent on 5 Flats – Accepts Genuine Vacancy Claim but Upholds Addition on Office Property Assessee, an individual, filed a return declaring income of ₹10.60 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large capital gain deductions claimed u/s 54, 54B, 54EC, 54EE, […]
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.
