CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for violations of overvaluation committed by exporters. Accordingly, order revoking license of Customs Broker cannot be sustained. In the result, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cash deposit on account of family settlement needs to be proved with documentary evidences like family settlement deed or relinquishment of property right etc. Matter restored with direction to assessee to submit relevant proof.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed since donation was given to Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust whose approval expired on 31.03.2006. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that sum has been received for work relating to interior and other finishing work and total consideration is received through banking channel. Hence, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Hence, penalty u/s. 271D not leviable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condition of investment to the corpus donation in mode prescribed under section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01/04/2022. Hence the said condition is not applicable in the relevant year. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that a business’s cash deposits during the demonetisation period were not unexplained under 68, provided they were sourced from genuine sales. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, holding that the lower authorities stock calculation was flawed and statutory records (VAT, Audited Books) corroborated the sales genuineness.
The ITAT Delhi remanded the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions under 36(1)(va), holding that the due date for deposit is calculated from the actual date of salary disbursement, not the calendar month of accrual. The AO was directed to verify if the deposit was made within 15 days of the month of actual payment to allow the deduction.c
The issue was whether high cash sales recorded before demonetisation, and subsequently deposited, could be taxed as unexplained income. The ITAT ruled that since the sales were already recorded, audited, and offered for tax, the deposits could not be taxed again under Section 68 or 69. The key takeaway is that when books of accounts are accepted and corroborated by stock and VAT returns, genuine sales receipts cannot be subjected to double taxation based on mere suspicion or averages.
