Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Navsari Agricultural University. v. CIT (2024) 208 ITD 521 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Provisional approval-Commenced it’s activities prior to amendments brought in grant of registration of trust effective from 1-4-2021-Filed application for grant of final approval under section 80G(5) within a period of six months from date of grant of provisional registration within extended timeline upto 30-9-2023-, Application could not be denied on ground that same was not filed before 30-9-2022 as per Circular No. 6/2023, dated 24-5-2023.[S. 12A,80G(5), Form No 10A]

R.L. Education Sanstha v. CIT (2024) 208 ITD 381 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Commenced its activities much prior to grant of provisional approval under section 80G(5)-Assessee would be entitled to file application for grant of regular approval under section 80G(5) prior to six months of expiry of provisional approval.[S.80G(5), Form No. 10AB]

Asmita Education and Healthcare Foundation. v. CIT (2024) 208 ITD 186 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Failure to appear before CIT(E)-Rejection of application in limine-Matter remanded back to Commissioner for decision afresh on merits. [S.80G(5)]

Madura Biotech (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 699 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Composite trading and profit and loss account-Sales accepted-Failure to response to notices issued by Revenue-s Ad-hoc disallowance of purchase of Milk is deleted.

Mahir Diamonds v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 626/114 ITR 80(SN) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Un explained investment-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Sales accepted-Addition is restricted to gross profit of 6.19%. [S.28(i), 69, 143]

Heena Gems v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 481/114 ITR 30(SN) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-filed details of purchases made and corresponding quantity of sales made-Entire purchases could not have been added to income-Only profit element can be taxed.

Kailash Gahlot. v. DCIT (2024) 208 ITD 25 /113 ITR 62 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Diary-Cash expenses-Absence of specific details in the affidavit-Addition is affirmed. [S. 132]

Dipak Balubhai Patel (HUF) v. ITO 2024] 208 ITD 386/115 ITR 624 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposit-Demonetization period-Source explained-Addition is deleted.[S.115BBE]

Ravi Jakhar v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 633 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Cash deposit of 3 lakh-Returned income of assessee is more than Rs. 50 lakhs, cash deposit of around 3 lakhs could not be treated as unexplained investment.

DCIT v. Center Point Gems (P.) Ltd. (2024) 208 ITD 213 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Disallowance is restricted at rate of 6 per cent of bogus purchases-Sale of shares-Explained the source of purchase-Order of CIT(A deleting the addition is affirmed-Reassessment is affirmed.[S. 147, 148]