The dispute concerned treatment of frequent cash deposits collected from customers for recharge services. The Tribunal affirmed that income should be estimated at 8% where records and compliance were lacking.
The Tribunal held that bank cash deposits explained through audited books and recorded transactions cannot be added. In absence of rejection of accounts, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that cash routed through a bank account for money transfer activity cannot be taxed in full when only commission is earned. Once commission income is offered to tax, no further addition is justified.
Extensive remand proceedings confirmed the genuineness of share transactions and valuation. The Tribunal ruled that once evidence is verified and no defect is found, LTCL cannot be disallowed.
The Tribunal examined whether entire purchases from untraceable suppliers could be added to income. It held that only the embedded profit element can be taxed, not the full purchase value.
The ruling clarifies that if purchases, stock, and trading results are accepted and books are not rejected, sales proceeds cannot be taxed as unexplained cash credits.
The Court held that while Section 194H applies to supplementary commission, no tax demand survives once agents have paid tax. Recovery was limited to interest under section 201(1A).
The High Court upheld deletion of additions based solely on unsigned loose sheets seized during search. In absence of independent corroborative evidence, such documents were held to have no evidentiary value.
It was ruled that granting a single, common approval for multiple assessment years violates the mandate of Section 153D. Each assessment year requires separate and conscious examination by the approving authority.
The tribunal held that once penalty is imposed for non-maintenance of books, a second penalty for non-audit cannot be levied. Levy of section 271B was held to be impermissible double penalisation.
