Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as deceased alone could have explained the source of the deposits, and since he had died before the initiation of penalty proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect the legal heir to establish his innocence.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A towards unexplained cash deposit cannot be sustained since it is reasonably explained that deposit is out of its business proceeds. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) set aside and appeal of assessee allowed.
The ITAT has remanded a trust’s application for regular registration after the CIT(E) rejected it as premature. The tribunal ruled the law doesn’t bar early applications and cited a previous judgment.
ITAT Ahmedabad application for registration of trust under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act since object of the applicant is not working for benefit of general public at large but is working for specific section of society. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that income from the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) by Mayur Dyechem Intermediates LLP for AY 2017-18 is a capital receipt and not taxable. Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and restored depreciation claims for CIT(A) adjudication.
Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana vs ITO before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, arose from an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 15.04.2025. The appeal concerned the assessee’s eligibility to claim rebate under Section 87A of the […]
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed a reassessment for AY 2012–13, ruling the property sale transaction occurred in an earlier year, invalidating the additions made.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted an addition of Rs. 18.51 lakh, ruling that pre-marriage gifts and substantiated contract income were not unexplained cash deposits.
The ITAT Ahmedabad quashed reassessments for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, ruling notices issued beyond 3 years were invalid as the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of an agriculturist, holding that once the assessee provides primary evidence for cash deposits, the burden shifts to the Revenue to provide contradictory evidence.
