The tribunal remanded the appeal to the Commissioner after the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was affirmed. The assessee is now granted a fresh opportunity to submit documents and respond, ensuring substantial justice.
ITAT Nagpur set aside a tax addition of ₹15 lakh under Section 68 against Annuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the company had sufficiently discharged its burden by providing comprehensive documentation, including bank statements and confirmations, to prove the share capital transaction was genuine.
The Tribunal sent the case back to the Assessing Officer after finding that documents proving investment sources and expenses were not examined earlier. Matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording hearing.
Nagpur ITAT remanded Vijay Peshane’s appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh review of addition under Section 6a9A. The assessee claimed miscommunication led to a failure to appear before the appellate authority.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act unwarranted since difference between actual sale price and valuation as per DVO is within tolerance band of 10%. Accordingly, entire addition is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Nagpur held that deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act admissible in case of interest earned from fixed deposit with bank. Accordingly, deduction claimed by the assessee is allowed by deleting the addition.
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.
