The Tribunal ruled that the addition, based on uncorroborated loose papers and rough jottings, was invalid. The decision followed a similar ruling in a co-partner’s case, establishing that such evidence without independent verification cannot be the sole basis for taxation.
The court found that the CIT(E) had failed to adequately examine whether the trust’s religious activities were within the 5% limit allowed under Section 80G(5B) and had also not provided the trust with a proper opportunity to be heard.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reopening of assessment for undisclosed high-value property sale, but remanded the Rs. 2.01 crore capital gain for fresh valuation due to flawed valuation reports.
The Tribunal condoned a 376-day delay in filing the appeal, citing a consultant’s lapse, and ruled that the assessee was denied a fair hearing. The case was remanded for a detailed examination of jurisdictional and factual issues.
ITAT Ahmedabad confirmed that the unsecured loan of ₹80.94 lakh given by Mahadev Shipbreakers to KCPL was genuine, routed through banking channels, and repaid with interest and TDS. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s appeal, noting AO’s allegations were generalized and unsubstantiated.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.30.5 lakh addition, ruling the loan was genuine and supported by bank records, while upholding the reopening of the assessment.
The ITAT Ahmedabad condoned a 604-day delay and remanded a case for fresh consideration of a public trust’s registration after the CIT(E) cancelled its provisional registration.
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
Briya Enterprise Ltd. successfully had delays in filing appeals condoned after ITAT held that notices sent to outdated email IDs and old Authorized Representatives justified the delay. Appeals were restored to CIT(A) for fresh decisions on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, ruled in favor of Sattavis Kadva Patidar Pragati Mandal, holding that a charitable trust with a small number of religious objects can still receive an 80G exemption.
