ITAT Pune held that late filing of audit report cannot disentitle trust from availing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) allowing claim of exemption u/s. 11 upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that when a 143(3) assessment merely adopts 143(1) figures without examining adjustments, taxpayers can still appeal the 143(1) intimation. Key takeaway: merger does not automatically block appeals.
ITAT modified CIT(A)’s 20% addition on alleged bogus purchases to 15%, considering actual sales and material usage. The ruling ensures only profit embedded in disputed purchases is taxed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
Delhi High Court held that security deposit which is nothing more than sale consideration hence the same used as a devise to postpone tax liability towards an uncertain date. Accordingly, the said question is answered in favour of revenue.
Gujarat High Court held that denial to condoned delay in filing cross-objections without adequate reasoning is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is quashed and delay in filing cross-objection condoned.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a ₹10 lakh cash addition treated as unexplained income under section 69 was fully explained through verified land compensation withdrawals. The source, identity, and availability of funds were documented by Revenue authorities, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that an assessee is entitled to TDS credit if the tax was deducted at source, even if the employer failed to deposit it or issue Form 16. Tax authorities cannot penalize the employee for the employer’s lapses.
Tribunal deleted 10% ad-hoc disallowances on travelling and telephone expenses as the assessee produced complete vouchers and audited books. Authorities cannot impose blanket disallowances without specific inquiry.
