PCIT initiated a Section 263 revision over AO’s failure to disallow cash payments under Section 40A(3). ITAT held that since AO had conducted adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view, revision was an invalid overreach and quashed order. The ruling affirms that a mere difference in opinion doesn’t satisfy twin conditions for invoking Section 263.
AO was wrong in disallowing the entire direct expenditure claimed towards sub-contractors for stevedoring and transport services and at the same time, assessee had not proved beyond doubt that the expenditure claimed was fully genuine. Considering all these inconsistencies, CIT(A) righlyl disallowed 20% of the expenditure claimed.
The ITAT Rajkot significantly reduced an income tax addition made under Section 69A based on seized on-money documents lacking direct evidence. The Tribunal ruled that the entire cash component couldn’t be treated as undisclosed income, instead taxing only 8% of the disputed amount as a profit element at normal rates.
The ITAT Rajkot allowed a taxpayer’s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)’s order which confirmed over Rs. 1.17 crore in tax additions. The Tribunal ruled that the lower authorities violated natural justice by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to explain disputed creditors and expense disallowances.
ITAT Rajkot confirmed that for a small trader opting for Section 44AD, the presumptive income covers the cash deposits related to the business cycle, making any separate addition for unexplained money (Section 69A) unjustifiable. The entire addition was deleted as the tax authorities acted on mere suspicion without bringing any contrary evidence to disprove the business nature of the deposits.
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).
