The ITAT Ahmedabad, applying the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal ruling and Gujarat High Court’s precedent, invalidated a reassessment for AY 2017-18. The order u/s 148A(d) and fresh u/s 148 notice, stemming from a deemed notice issued on 30.06.2021, were held time-barred as they were issued 20 days beyond the maximum seven-day ‘surviving time’ limit.
The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling the CIT(A)’s rejection of agricultural income based solely on bank deposits not tallying bill-to-bill was arbitrary and illogical. Once the genuine agricultural activity was accepted, timing differences or cash accumulation must be considered.
The ITAT deleted a capital gains addition, ruling that the use of an individual’s PAN during a property sale cannot legally override clinching documentary evidence proving ownership by an HUF and a Trust. Legal ownership (Will, sale deed, bank receipts) prevails over a mere technicality.
The ITAT confirmed the revision, ruling the AO’s failure to restrict the deduction to the DSIR-approved amount in Form 3CL was an error contrary to the amended law, causing prejudice to the revenue. Post-2016 amendments make this verification mandatory.
The ITAT Ahmedabad remanded Dhananjay Tradelink Pvt. Ltd.’s case for fresh assessment, directing the AO to reverify ₹14.39 crore in unsecured loans and creditors under Section 68.
The Tribunal deleted an addition of capital gains, noting the AO’s error in taxing the entire sale consideration in one co-owner’s hands when her actual share was minimal and below the basic exemption limit.
The ITAT Ahmedabad annulled reassessment proceedings as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving limitation period prescribed under TOLA and clarified in Rajeev Bansal (SC).
The Tribunal held that where an assessee’s accounting method is consistent, and gross margins remain stable over the years, the AO cannot substitute his subjective judgment for the businessman’s discretion without proving the expenditure is bogus or for non-business purposes.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes Rs.11.27 lakh addition for penny stock investment, ruling the Revenue failed to prove the investment originated from the assessee’s own unexplained funds under Section 69B.
The ITAT ruled against mechanically confirming a large addition under Section 69C, stating that tax authorities must genuinely distinguish between procedural discrepancies and fraudulent inflation. The case was sent back, underscoring that documentary proof is essential before penalizing for purchase differences.
