It was held that transport charges cannot be disallowed when PAN-based TDS, ledger matching, and banking trails exist. The ruling confirms that non-response to notices alone is insufficient.
The reopening relied on a bank account number that did not match the account from which transactions were considered. The Tribunal restored the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that reassessment must be based on accurate bank details.
The Tribunal held that earning income as a percentage of hospital turnover is commercial, not charitable. Section 80G approval was rightly denied for lack of genuine charitable application.
ITAT Ranchi directed the AO to readjudicate the tax liability for a ₹23.5 lakh cash deposit after the assessee claimed the bank wrongly attached his PAN to a company’s account. The AO must verify if the company disclosed the account and had adequate cash for the deposit.
Ranchi ITAT deleted tax additions, ruling that income from 6 acres of land was genuinely agricultural. The AO’s action was reversed as evidence from the Village Mukhia confirmed cultivation and land ownership.
The Tribunal found the tax addition in the Dulu Mahato case unsustainable. The AO failed to refer the property renovation valuation to the DVO and ignored evidence of joint investment by all co-owners.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal, directing the AO to readjudicate the matter afresh. The assessee must fully cooperate and pay a cost for the earlier failure to produce documents.
ITAT Ranchi quashes PCIT’s Section 263 order against a Co-operative Society (Chotanagpur Catholic Mission). Rules 80P deduction cannot be denied after AO’s thorough verification.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi, partly allowed Pato Builders’ appeal for AY 2012-13. The tribunal confirmed the addition of share application money for nine investors for whom no details were provided, but reduced the estimated disallowance on other expenses.
The ITAT Ranchi has remanded the case of Pravin Engineering Pvt. Ltd. back to the Assessing Officer. The company’s claim that a ₹11.36 lakh directors’ commission was incorrectly reported as a dividend was not considered by the lower authorities.
