The ITAT reaffirmed that genuine statutory deductions cannot be denied solely due to technical defects or the absence of a specific column in the ITR form. The Tribunal directed the to allow the deductions, including beyond the 10% limit for eligible specified donations.
The ITAT set aside the crore addition, ruling that lower authorities acted mechanically by rejecting detailed evidence like invoices, bank statements, and vendor confirmations. The Tribunal mandated a remand, emphasizing that suspicion is not a valid basis for disallowance when substantial documentary proof is on record.
Mumbai ITAT clarified that perpetual leasehold rights are equivalent to ownership for the purpose of a specified agreement” under Section 45(5A)/194-IC, requiring 10% TDS on JDA monetary payments.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, ruling that a genuine business loss from penny stock trading, supported by contract notes and demat records, cannot be disallowed based solely on a third-party statement or generic investigation report.
The ITAT ruled that crore cash found in a locker during a search was not “unexplained money” because the assessee immediately explained the source as accumulated speculative business income and offered it to tax. The Tribunal held that a disclosed source, even if unrecorded, cannot be forcefully converted into unexplained income.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that entry inward at respective port shall determine rate of duty applicable. Accordingly, enhanced duty rate of 7.5% applicable in the present case. Thus, appeal of assessee dismissed.
Kerala High Court held that since statute doesn’t provide for any outer time limit, assessment under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 should be finalized within reasonable period.
The Tribunal ruled that the crore addition, made solely because the assessee’s petrol pump was allegedly unauthorized to accept SBNs, was incorrect. Since the cash deposits were sourced from historical, recorded cash sales accepted by the AO, taxing the deposits again would constitute impermissible double taxation.
ITAT Raipur held that addition upheld by CIT(A) without passing a speaking order in the backdrop of documents uploaded by the assessee. Accordingly, matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The ITAT quashed the reassessment order as void because the final assessment was completed by an Income Tax Officer (Ward-2) who lacked jurisdiction, while the proceedings were initiated by another officer (Ward-3). The Tribunal, citing the Allahabad High Court, ruled that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by participation.
