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.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the addition of ₹2.28 crore LTCG, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any independent inquiry or verify the assessees documentary evidence before treating the gain as bogus. The Tribunal restored the case, emphasizing that an allegation of penny stock misuse cannot be sustained merely on third-party information without a proper, on-merits examination of the assessees documentation.
The Tribunal set aside the addition of LTCG and commission under Section 69C, affirming that the Revenue cannot deny exemption under Section 10(38) based on a general investigation into Kushal Tradelink without establishing the assessees direct involvement in the accommodation entries. This ruling confirms that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proof, the Revenue must provide contrary material to sustain the addition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad ruled in Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Jivrajpark Vs CIT (Exemption) that a trust with composite, charitable, and incidental religious objects cannot be denied 80G registration merely because one object seems religious.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of non-compete fees to retiring partner is revenue expenditure. Accordingly, considering the same as capital expenditure not justifiable. The appeal is allowed to that extent.
The ITAT confirmed the penalty levy, ruling that a subsequent rectification order allowing carry-forward losses doesn’t affect the penalty base. Penalty is tied to the tax evaded on the additions confirmed by the appellate body ( crore), not the final assessed income.
The ITAT ruled that filing a revised return does not restrict interest entitlement on the amount claimed in the original, timely filed return, citing the Gujarat High Court. Interest must run from April 1st of the assessment year on the bulk refund, with the later date applying only to the incremental claim.
The ITAT ruled that the AO and CIT(A) erred by mechanically raising a default demand simply because commission was paid to a non-resident. The Tribunal stressed that full compliance evidence (Form 15CB, Form 27Q, DTAA analysis) must be examined before classifying the assessee as a defaulter.
