The AO disallowed a weighted deduction relying only on a subsequent CBDT list. ITAT ruled that factual verification and proof of bogus donation are mandatory before denying the claim.
The issue was whether an extrapolated SCO value could justify unexplained investment in the buyer’s hands. ITAT held that once the seller’s extrapolation was rejected, the buyer’s addition could not survive.
The Assessing Officer treated full bank deposits as unexplained income under section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that agricultural turnover cannot be taxed entirely and allowed only an estimated 10% addition.
Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) Central Circle Cannot Assume Reassessment Powers — Section 148 Notice Issued Outside Faceless Regime Held Void The Visakhapatnam Bench of the ITAT quashed the reassessment framed under Section 147 and consequential penalties under Sections 270A and 271AAC in the case of Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi v. ACIT, holding that […]
The issue centered on employees’ PF contributions and statutory due dates post-Checkmate ruling. The ITAT held that detailed verification was still required, warranting remand.
The issue was whether a notice dated 31-03-2021 but digitally signed on 01-04-2021 was valid. The ITAT held the notice was issued under the new regime without following section 148A, rendering reassessment void.
The AO added ₹1 crore based on alleged cash receipts from third-party material. The Tribunal held the reopening itself was invalid, so the addition could not survive.
The issue was whether property attachment under PMLA survives after discharge of some accused. The Tribunal held that as long as the scheduled offence continues against a principal accused, attachment of properties cannot be lifted.
The AO issued reassessment notices during the post-Ashish Agrawal transition phase. Applying later Supreme Court law, the ITAT held AY 2015-16 is beyond the permissible reopening period.
The appellants argued that old properties could not be attached under PMLA. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that “value of proceeds of crime” covers such assets when tainted funds are unavailable.
