ITAT Rajkot held that Section 87A does not expressly prohibit rebate on tax payable on short-term capital gains under Section 111A for AY 2024-25. Following an earlier Coordinate Bench ruling, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash transactions between close family members do not constitute loans or deposits under Sections 269SS and 269T. Following the Gujarat High Court’s precedent, it deleted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E.
The ITAT set aside the rejection of registration under Section 12AB after noting that only one opportunity of hearing had been provided. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to allow the assessee to submit supporting documents.
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.
