Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since statutory threshold of ₹50 lakh was not met, reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, and assessment proceedings. The penalties were deleted as there was no concealment of income.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and bank records. The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot be sustained merely on suspicion.
ITAT Rajkot held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of the addition to 13.7% instead of the full purchase amount.
ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive verification of agricultural income and expenses. The Tribunal observed that detailed notices, documentary evidence, and independent inquiries were part of the original assessment proceedings.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
The ITAT Rajkot held that mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not automatically justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished agricultural sale bills, revenue records, and bank details supporting the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, only a partial addition was sustained.
ITAT Rajkot held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approving authority merely stated Yes, I am satisfied without independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated Section 151 approval as a mandatory procedural safeguard.
The Tribunal held that lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for delay. The matter was restored for reconsideration on merits.
