The ITAT Nagpur allowed the appeal of Bhivraj Mohanlal Jain, deleting the unexplained investment addition of lakhs under Section , ruling that the transactions were genuine intraday trading resulting in a marginal profit.
ITAT Nagpur held that short term capital gain tax paid under section 111A @15% cannot be reclassified as taxable under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act without any basis. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The ITAT Nagpur allowed an agriculturist’s appeal, deleting an addition u/s 68 after ruling that agricultural production cannot be estimated mechanically using average yield data, as yield varies based on soil, weather, and farming practices.
The ITAT Nagpur set aside a reassessment that added Rs. 11 lakhs to income, ruling that the AO violated Section 148A(b) by providing only 6 clear days for the taxpayer’s response, contrary to Bombay and Calcutta High Court precedents.
The ITAT Nagpur condoned a 489-day delay and, on merits, deleted an addition of ₹20,32,500 made under Section 69, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide substantive evidence or corroboration that the investment was made in the relevant assessment year, A.Y.
The ITAT Nagpur has set aside a penalty of ₹11.8 lakh imposed on Kirtikumar Haribhai Patel, ruling that the penalty, being consequential to the assessment order, cannot survive once the original assessment is restored for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Nagpur has dismissed Revenue’s appeal against Western Coalfields Ltd., affirming that a delay in filing Form 10-IC for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA can be condoned.
The ITAT Nagpur has set aside a revision order by the PCIT against Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF). The tribunal ruled that the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 to revise an assessment where the AO had already conducted a thorough enquiry and formed a plausible view, even if a different view was possible.
ITAT Nagpur has set aside the dismissal of Balkishan Mohanlal Gandhi’s appeal. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)’s two notices with very short deadlines did not constitute a fair opportunity, and the order was invalid as it failed to be a speaking order.
ITAT Nagpur remands Alankar Real Estates’ case to CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)’s dismissal and simultaneous adjudication on merits contradictory, denying the assessee a fair chance.
