The issue was whether the entire bank deposits could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69. The tribunal held that deposits linked to business activity cannot be fully taxed and directed estimation of profit at 8%.
The tribunal examined whether penalties could continue when the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating them. It ruled that absence of such satisfaction makes the penalties invalid in law.
The tribunal considered whether total bank credits could be added as unexplained money. It held that when deposits are consistent with declared turnover and business activity, they cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The tribunal noted discrepancies in the dispatch register used to prove issuance of the notice. Because the records did not inspire confidence, the tribunal held the reassessment notice to be time-barred.
The Tribunal held that when the difference between purchase price and DVO valuation falls within the 10% tolerance band, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii). The addition based on stamp duty value was therefore deleted.
ITAT Chennai deletes Sec 270A penalty, ruling 200% penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed without specifying clause of Sec 270A(9) or proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held that failure to start charitable activities cannot by itself justify denial of registration under section 12AB. Since the trust’s objects were charitable and proposed activities were genuine, the rejection of registration and 80G approval was set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can arise when income is added due to the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that a stamp duty valuation difference alone does not establish concealment, so penalty cannot be sustained
ITAT Chennai rules 60% tax under Section 115BBE not applicable to AY 2017-18 transactions before 01-04-2017; directs tax on ₹30.43 lakh addition at 30%.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 148 issued beyond three years requires sanction from PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from PCIT was held insufficient, leading to quashing of the reassessment.
