ITAT Agra held that ₹8.84 crore deposited and withdrawn from bank accounts used for ATM cash replenishment could not be treated as unexplained money of the employee. The Tribunal confirmed that the amounts belonged to Punjab & Sind Bank.
ITAT ruled that cash deposits made during demonetisation were justified by proceeds from sale of agricultural land. Tribunal upheld deletion of the ₹1.28 crore addition under Section 69A, confirming that registered sale deeds and evidence of cash flow adequately established the source of the funds.
ITAT Pune deleted the penalty of Rs.2.74 lakh imposed under Section 270A(9) for misreporting income related to delayed PF/ESIC payments. The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee’s claim was based on prevailing High Court judgments and the issue was debatable until the Supreme Court ruling, the mere disallowance of expenditure, where all particulars were disclosed, does not attract a misreporting penalty.
ITAT Pune set aside the rejection of a final 80G approval application, ruling that a technical delay caused by withdrawing and refiling the application due to a typographical error should be condoned. The Tribunal held that rejecting the application on mere procedural lapse, despite the original filing being on time, defeats the purpose of the law.
ITAT Cuttack remanded a demonetization case back to CIT(A), granting legal heir of deceased assessee a fresh opportunity. Tribunal ruled that appeal, which involved factual verification of large cash deposits, should be adjudicated on merits after allowing heir to furnish supporting documents.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld PCIT’s revision under Section 263 because AO wrongly allowed a cumulative Rs.28.72 crore foreign exchange loss on ECB repayment in one year. Tribunal ruled that under ICDS-VI and AS-11, forex differences must be recognized annually, making AO’s failure to verify compliance erroneous.
ITAT Indore deleted a Rs.1.46 crore addition made under Section 69C via rectification, ruling that the AO wrongly invoked the section. The commission payments reported in the audit form were a pass-through on behalf of clients, not the assessee’s claimed business expenditure, meaning the deduction of TDS didn’t imply an unrecorded expense.
ITAT Jaipur quashed an addition of Rs.14.47 lakh made under Section 69A because the assessment was framed by a Jaipur-based AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee residing in Sri Ganganagar. The Tribunal ruled that the objection to jurisdiction, raised by the assessee and unrebutted by the Revenue, renders the entire assessment order void ab initio.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
ITAT Delhi upheld reassessment on an individual for AY 2017-18, finding that existence of dual PANs and huge undisclosed demonetization cash deposits constituted tangible material. Tribunal confirmed that sufficiency of material is irrelevant at reopening stage, only prima facie belief matters when notice is issued within four years.
