ITAT allowed assessee’s MA observing that nonconsideration of binding judicial precedents constitutes as a mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s 254(2); Therefore, ITAT recalled its original order for fresh adjudication in light of the judicial precedents; Reliance placed on Supreme Court ruling in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., wherein the SC categorically held that non-consideration of a binding decision of a jurisdictional HC or SC by the ITAT constitutes a “mistake apparent on record” and such error is rectifiable u/s 254(2).

ITAT upheld CIT(A) order restricting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C to 5%; Assessee declared sales against the purchases made from 3 entities, which were claimed by the Revenue as non-existing entities; When the sales declared in the P & L account of the Assessee were accepted by the AO, thus said purchases cannot be in toto held to be bogus; Reliance placed on assessee’s own case noting that if sales are accepted by Revenue then goods purchased qua sales made are also bound to be accepted and Section 69C cannot be invoked for deeming income.

HC held that delay in filing Form No. 67 u/r 128 cannot defeat substantive claim of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC); HC held that it would amount to withholding of a substantial amount of an assessee without there being any authority of law which would amount to unjust enrichment in turn; As per HC, in the instant case, it was the default of the Assessee and the same could have been, rather should have been condoned by the PCIT under Section 264; HC directed AO to allow the FTC claim once the Assessee furnished Form No. 67 and pass a speaking order within two months.

ITAT deleted addition u/s 68 since assessee was able to establish the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the buyers; ITAT accepted assessee’s contention that the amount was received on sale of shares of an entity owned by the Assessee company; Assessee had duly disclosed the transaction of sale of shares in its return of income and paid taxes thereon; Section 68 mandates that the nature and the source of credits should be explained to the satisfaction of AO however, in the instant case the credits alleged as unexplained were not the liability but was an income already offered to tax.

ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT(A) giving an opportunity to the Assessee to present its case regarding the reasonable cause that prevented it from getting an audit as per the statutory provision; Despite the income being exempt, the audit report u/s 44AB on Form3CD was required to be filed as the turnover had exceeded the specified the amount; Emphasizing Assessee’s submissions that it had reasonable cause for not getting the audit carried out, Tribunal remarked that no such reasonable cause was mentioned before it except for the fact that its income was exempt.

ITAT allowed holding that protective addition u/s 69 cannot survive where substantive addition on identical facts has been deleted on merit; ITAT observed that except for the excel sheet (incriminating material) found in a third party’s premises, no independent corroborative evidence was brought on record to establish that the Assessee had actually paid cash for purchase of property; Mere reliance on third-party statements, without independent corroboration, was insufficient when the Assessee categorically denied payment; Substantive addition made in Assessee’s brother case had already been deleted on merits by the CIT(A), therefore, protective addition cannot be made in Assessee’s hands.

HC quashed demand notice u/s 156 of Rs. 5.02 Crores since the said notice was issued after four years after the assessment order was passed determining NIL tax liability; As per HC, if the Revenue had to issue any demand notice then there had to be a recourse of reopening of assessment or change of the original assessment order which may have been available as per the provisions of the Act; When there were no arrears as per the assessment order, the question of notice of demand u/s 156 did not arise; HC thus held that the contents of demand notice were in total contravention of the provisions of the Act.

ITAT observed that deduction u/s 80P is to be allowed from the Gross Total Income and the same cannot be restricted to income computed under the head ‘Profits & Gains of Business or Profession’; AO had held that interest from banks and interest on income tax refund cannot be considered as business income and they had to be made taxable as income from other sources without 80P deduction; As per ITAT, section 80P does not mandate head-wise limitation and once eligible profits are computed, the deduction must be set off against the Gross Total Income, subject to statutory ceiling under Section 80A(2).

ITAT held the assessee to be entitled to exemption u/s 54F on account of investment of capital gains from sale of shares in the construction of new residential property which was being jointly constructed with other family members; If a residential property is jointly owned by two persons, that would not preclude the person from claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act, as the assessee would not be hit by the proviso to section 54F of the Act, being not the exclusive owner of the residential property; Further, the fact that the assessee began construction of the property much prior to the date of sale of capital asset would not disentitle her from claiming exemption u/s 54F.

ITAT set aside the reassessment proceedings by holding the same to be unsustainable being based on borrowed satisfaction as there was no live and rational nexus between information received from investigation wing and the belief of escapement of income formed by the AO; Notice u/s 148A(b) did not clarify whether the alleged transaction was related to sales made by the Assessee or purchases made from the said concern; AO had not verified the underlying facts to ascertain the actual nature of the transaction before recording his satisfaction; Fact that certain suppliers were inactive on the GST portal cannot be a ground for making additions in the hands of the purchaser.