The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order which had wrongly confirmed a 37% surcharge on a Discretionary Trust with low income, relying on a precedent later clarified by the Tribunal. The ruling establishes that levying the highest 37% surcharge rate on MMR trusts, without considering the income slabs, leads to legal absurdity and is incorrect.
This ITAT Rajkot decision clarifies that when an assessee establishes a clear nexus between past bank withdrawals and subsequent demonetisation cash deposits, the high tax rate under Section 115BBE is not applicable. The Tribunal, citing a Gujarat HC judgment, deleted the entire addition except for a 5% estimated profit to balance revenue interest and taxpayer evidence.
The Tribunal deleted the entire tax addition, relying on a binding coordinate bench decision that accepted the LTCG on the same scrip (Tuni Textile) under identical facts. This ruling emphasizes judicial discipline and holds that the Revenue cannot ignore established jurisdictional precedents and High Court rulings allowing LTCG when the transaction is supported by concrete, demat-based evidence.
The ITAT allowed the LTCG exemption, confirming that the department cannot ignore binding jurisdictional High Court judgments and its own precedent on the exact same scrip and issue. The ruling firmly establishes that if all compliance conditions are met, the Revenue cannot reject a capital gain claim based on general allegations of price manipulation without independent, concrete evidence against the assessee.
ITAT Rajkot directs CIT(E) to reconsider 80G approval for Meena Samaj Seva Trust, confirming trusts serving Scheduled Tribes are not barred under Section 80G(5).
The ITAT Rajkot confirmed the addition of Rs.3.99 crore to the income of Kataria Snack Pellets Pvt. Ltd. under Section 56(2)(viib), ruling that the company’s Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) share valuation was speculative, lacked empirical support for growth rates and terminal value, and failed to adhere to ICAI guidelines.
ITAT Rajkot deletes Rs.2.5 lakh cash addition made during demonetization, ruling that the amount was within the non-taxable limit specified by the CBDT for small deposits.
ITAT Rajkot’s ruling in Milind Pankajbhai Shroff vs. PCIT confirms the Principal Commissioner’s authority under Section 263 to revise an assessment where the AO failed to inquire into a ₹30 Lakh deduction claimed for bogus political donations,
Rajkot Bench of ITAT granted relief to a farmer by deleting an addition for unexplained investment, holding that land purchase was funded by compensation from Reliance Infrastructure.
The ITAT Rajkot restored the case of Jay Mataji Charitable Trust vs. CIT (Exemption) to the CIT(E) to determine if the trust’s religious expenditures were within the 5% limit allowed under Section 80G(5B).
