The ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessees entire claim for business expenses, deleting a large proportionate disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal ruled that since the assessee was an active working partner in multiple firms and a proprietor, the expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and the revenue failed to prove they were non-genuine.
The ITAT Chennai directed the CIT(E) to reconsider a trusts 80G application on merits, ruling it couldnt be rejected mechanically on grounds of delay. The Tribunal held that since the Finance Act, 2024 amendment (Section 80G(5)(iv)) allowing trusts to apply at any time took effect while the application was pending, the CIT(E) was bound to apply the amended, flexible law.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside an order that attempted to rectify an assessment to tax a survey disclosure under Section 69A/115BBE instead of normal business income. The Tribunal ruled that the question of classifying the already accounted income as business receipts versus unexplained money is a debatable issue that falls outside the limited scope of rectification under Section 154.
The ITAT Chennai deleted the disallowance of claimed agricultural income, ruling that revenue from the sale of eucalyptus trees grown on the assessees agricultural land is exempt under Section 2(1A). The Tribunal held that the assessee performed both basic and subsequent agricultural operations, and the AOs mere doubt about visible maintenance was insufficient to deny the exemption.
An assessment reopened to tax alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) was declared void ab initio by the ITAT, strictly applying Section 151. The Tribunal held that statutory sanction cannot be bypassed or taken from a non-competent authority, even following the Ashish Agarwal directions, making the entire reassessment jurisdictionally flawed.
This ruling underscores the mandatory requirement for incriminating material to sustain additions in a Section 153C search assessment, leading to the deletion of a major bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) addition. Furthermore, the ITAT confirmed that a partnership firm’s investment and income cannot be attributed to an individual partner, securing significant tax relief.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a major protective tax addition against a firm, ruling it would result in double taxation. Evidence proved the corresponding income, found on seized loose papers, was personal to a partner and had already been declared and taxed in the partner’s individual return.
The ITAT ruled that seized parallel Tally data, reflecting higher sales and income, constitutes reliable incriminating material, validating assessments made under Section 153A. The tribunal sustained additions for higher gross profit and unexplained credits after the taxpayer failed to disprove the parallel records’ accuracy, reinforcing the presumption under Section 292C.
The ITAT ruled that CSR expenditure, though disallowed as a business expense, qualifies for deduction under Section 80G if paid to approved entities. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the donations and allow the 80G claim, rejecting the argument that a mandatory statutory expense cannot be a donation.
The Allahabad High Court set aside multiple GST show cause notices and assessment orders issued against a firm whose proprietor was already deceased, ruling that proceedings for tax determination cannot be initiated against a dead person but must be directed towards the legal representatives.
