The Mumbai ITAT deleted the interest disallowance, applying the principle of consistency because the Revenue had previously accepted the assessee’s classification of net interest income under Income from Other Sources in earlier scrutiny assessments. The court found no justification to deviate from this accepted treatment for the current year.
The ITAT Pune condoned a 100-day delay in filing the tax appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the taxpayer’s reliance on professional advice and relocation. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be heard on its merits, reinforcing the principle that substantive justice prevails over procedural lapses.
ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, holding that the AO lacked jurisdiction because the necessary approval for the Section 148 notice, issued for A.Y. 2017-18 after three years, was obtained from the wrong authority. Following jurisdictional precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that the invalid approval under Section 151 vitiates the entire reassessment process.
The case was remanded for fresh adjudication because the lower authorities failed to consider the taxpayer’s claim that a significant Nazarana/fees paid to the Municipal Corporation should be included in the property’s cost. The ITAT directed the AO to verify all factual claims related to the cost of acquisition and the date of agreement for correct valuation under Section 56(2)(vii)(b).
This case addresses the mismatch between Form 26AS receipts and income shown in the P&L account, which led to an addition for suppressed receipts. ITAT Pune allowed the appeal, relying on the SC ruling in TRF Ltd. to confirm that the company’s action of reversing the unrecovered billing as irrecoverable was a legitimate write-off, thus making the addition unjustified.
The ITAT restored an NRI’s tax appeal, accepting the argument that non-compliance before the lower authorities was not deliberate, as the taxpayer was abroad and faced difficulties accessing records during the pandemic. The Tribunal ruled that the appeal should be decided on its merits, setting aside the ex-parte order and directing the AO to verify the factual claims regarding the assessment year and capital gains.
The ITAT Agra dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of a ₹2.35 crore unexplained cash credit under Section 68, agreeing that the amount was a closing balance from prior, assessed years. The ruling established that the taxpayer’s savings and financial reconciliation, supported by earlier ITRs, were sufficient evidence against the addition.
ITAT Pune held that since object of the trust are charitable in nature and genuineness of activity is established by documents, assessee is eligible for registration under section 12A read with section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, in Mahendra Prakash Pawar Vs ITO, deleted an addition of ₹21.69 lakh made under Section 69C for unexplained credit card payments. The court accepted the assessee’s explanation that cash deposits came from his brother’s transportation business for fuel purchases.
The ITAT Pune set aside a best judgment assessment (u/s 144) that arbitrarily estimated an 8% net profit for a poultry farm and disallowed interest expense. The Tribunal ruled that substantive justice requires a fresh adjudication, remanding the case to the AO to allow the assessee a fair chance to present audited books and evidence.
