The ITAT Amritsar held that a reassessment under Section 147 was void as the Section 148 notice was issued without complying with procedural requirements and statutory service obligations.
The ITAT Amritsar remanded the 12A registration application after the CIT(E) ignored documentary proof of charitable activities. The trust must now be reconsidered with full verification of invoices, bank statements, and photographs.
Tribunal dismisses AO’s addition after assessing evidence, books of accounts, VAT returns, and confirmed ledgers, confirming the transactions’ authenticity.
The Tribunal allowed stay of recovery after directing a jewellery firm to pay ₹10 lakh and furnish a ₹10 lakh bank guarantee, holding 20% payment mandatory under section 254(2A).
ITAT Amritsar partly allows an appeal, reducing income addition from Rs. 3.88 lakhs to Rs. 6,000 for specified bank note deposits after SEO demonetization.
The ITAT sent a tax assessment case back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, citing the assessee’s claim of DIN absence in the assessment order. The appellate authority must now adjudicate on both the merits and the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 compliance.
ITAT Amritsar condoned the 146-day delay in a senior citizen’s appeal, accepting passport evidence of her absence from India as sufficient cause, and remanded the case for fresh assessment.
The ITAT set aside a Section 69A addition for unexplained cash payments, ruling that the AO must first verify the facts. The case was remanded because the assessee claimed an original allottee made the payment but failed to provide the plot’s transfer agreement as proof.
Upholding a crucial legal principle, the ITAT ruled that where a businesss income is estimated on a percentage-of-turnover basis, any additions made under 68 for items like unsecured loans or capital on the basis of unverified entries must be deleted. The decision provides relief by confirming that estimated net profit covers the source of cash and capital.
Where the only piece of evidence, AO possessed was the ‘Iqrarnama’, which was not found in the assessee’s possession, was not in their handwriting, and did not bear their genuine signatures, no addition could be made to the assessee’s income, treating it as unexplained money and interest.
