The ITAT Pune set aside the CIT(A)’s order that had restricted a bogus purchase addition of ₹2.53 crore to a 12.5% profit element. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure the application of the binding ruling from the jurisdictional Bombay High Court regarding 100% disallowance in hawala purchase cases.
Relying on binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the revisionary order as legally invalid because the PCIT failed to bring the legal heir on record before passing the order. The ruling firmly establishes that an income tax order passed against a dead person is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the AO’s acceptance of ₹12.18 lakh exempt LTCG on Kushal Tradelink shares was based on a detailed inquiry and a plausible view. The Tribunal held that revision is invalid when the AO conducts due diligence, finds no adverse material to link the assessee to price rigging, and takes a possible view on the evidence.
Kolkata ITAT ruled in DCIT vs. Jupiter International that a ₹6.7 crore addition in an unabated tax year was illegal. Jurisdiction under Section 153A fails without seized, incriminating material, per SC precedent.
Adopting a principle of consistency, the ITAT Delhi restored the appeal for AY 2009-10 to the CIT(A), following its own earlier order for AYs 2010-11 to 2019-20 in the assessees case. The ruling ensures that the legal heir gets a proper chance to present evidence and submissions, thereby nullifying the additions made in the ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal because the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books had already been deleted by the Tribunal, establishing that the authority was not legally obliged to keep books. The Tribunal concluded that if no books are required to be maintained under Section 44AA, no penalty for failure to audit them under Section 271B can legally survive.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the balance unexplained cash credit, emphasizing that mere suspicion of cash deposits in the lenders account doesnt negate the genuineness of a loan when the lender has significant proven sources like an agricultural land sale.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the addition of ₹2.28 crore LTCG, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any independent inquiry or verify the assessees documentary evidence before treating the gain as bogus. The Tribunal restored the case, emphasizing that an allegation of penny stock misuse cannot be sustained merely on third-party information without a proper, on-merits examination of the assessees documentation.
ITAT Rajkot directs CIT(E) to reconsider 80G approval for Meena Samaj Seva Trust, confirming trusts serving Scheduled Tribes are not barred under Section 80G(5).
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favour of Goldman Sachs (Singapore) Pte, holding that an FPI claiming capital gains exemption under the India-Singapore DTAA (Article 13) cannot be forced to set off prior year’s brought-forward losses against that exempt income.
