As the assessee had not submitted his explanation with respect to cash deposit made by him during the demonetization period, the same was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
ITAT Surat held that the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) is not deliberate or intentional or due to gross negligence on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, delay of more than 2 years condoned and matter remanded back to CIT(A).
ITAT Surat held that employee’s contribution towards PF and ESI cannot be allowed if it is deposited after the due dates under those Acts but before filing of return. Accordingly, disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) confirmed and appeal dismissed.
The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. AO observed that the assessee had also from other sources and also from agricultural activities carried out during the year
ITAT partly allows agricultural income claim for Jesal Jatin Desai but upholds disallowance of a portion due to lack of evidence.
ITAT Surat held that rejection of application for regular approval of fund under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act as time barred not justified in terms of relaxation of time period as per CBDT Circular no. 7/2024 dated 25.04.2024
Therefore, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 is sustained. Since, addition u/s 68 has been upheld, the expenditure incurred to earn the above sums are to be added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure.
ITAT Surat remands Mahesh Desai’s appeal to AO, allowing him to substantiate cash deposits after prior ex parte decisions, upholding fair hearing principles.
ITAT Surat lowers commission income rate for Nanak Motumal Pherwani to 0.50% on bank transactions, aligning with reasonable industry standards in cheque discounting.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since AO has not made any independent investigation of fact. Accordingly, ad hoc disallowance @10% upheld to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage.
