ITAT Lucknow rules that additions under Section 68 require incriminating evidence. ₹2 crore cash credit addition against Ocean Dream Infrastructures is deleted.
ITAT Lucknow upholds denial of Section 54 exemption as investment in new property was made after the due date. Cites judicial precedents in support of ruling.
Where payment made to foreign entities by way of retainership fee did not result in commensurate business in USA in the year relevant to assessment year 2008-09, it did not imply that the expenditure incurred was not for the purpose of the assessee’s business. AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs.64,88,451/- by observing that the expenditure was disallowed u/s 14A.
ITAT Lucknow held that addition by calculating sales on hypothetical basis and completely ignoring various evidences submitted during course of assessment proceedings is unjustifiable. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition is deleted.
ITAT Lucknow quashed assessments in Shri Navin Jain vs. DCIT, citing mechanical approval under Section 153D. Read key details and legal findings.
ITAT Lucknow held that cash deposits out of the past savings during demonetization being reasonable and as per social standing of the assessee is justifiable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed and addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Lucknow held that delay of 4 days erroneously calculated as delay of 551 days by CIT(A). Accordingly, directed CIT(A) to consider request of condonation and if found appropriate to grant opportunity of being heard.
ITAT Lucknow quashes Rs. 57.03 lakh cash deposit addition and penalty against Girja Shankar, granting a fresh hearing for reassessment and fair proceedings.
ITAT Lucknow deletes ₹5.39 lakh addition u/s 69A, accepting assessee’s explanation for cash deposits during demonetization period. Bank certificate supports claim of ₹39,500 in old currency.
In the matter above mentioned ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO after observing that the provision invoked by the AO was introduced introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 only, whereas the assessee had entered into the transaction on 01.08.2012.
