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.
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.
