The Pune ITAT held that estimating net profit at 18% of contract receipts was excessive in the absence of supporting material. Applying principles similar to presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, the Tribunal restricted the profit rate to 8% and granted substantial relief.
The ITAT held that Section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked where the assessee had not made the rent payments referred to in the tax audit report. The addition was traced to an inadvertent reporting error by the auditor.
The Tribunal ruled that a notice issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year requires sanction from the authority prescribed under Section 151. Since approval was obtained from the wrong authority, the reassessment proceedings were held to be illegal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because it was passed within four weeks of disposing of the assessee’s objections to reopening. Following Bombay High Court precedents, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessees claim for deductions under Chapter VI-A required factual verification rather than outright rejection. It directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim after examining relevant documents and evidence.
ITAT held that a typographical mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause of Section 80P does not defeat a valid deduction claim. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to grant the full deduction where eligibility was otherwise undisputed.
Assessments arising from searches conducted after 01.04.2021 must strictly comply with the reassessment framework under sections 147 and 148. Failure to adhere to statutory jurisdictional requirements, including mandatory approvals and satisfaction for use of third-party material, rendered the entire assessment void.
The ITAT ruled that an assessment made after the assessees death was not void ab initio where jurisdiction had already been validly assumed before death. The matter was remanded for passing a fresh order in the name of the legal representative.
Tribunal held that the differential amount between the levy price of sugar and the concessional price at which it was sold by a co-operative factory to its members and non-members constitutes an unallowable appropriation of profit to be added to business income, or a valid business practice could not be decided without examining the factual parameters mandated by the Supreme Court in Krishna Sahakari Karkhana Ltd.
The assessee mistakenly filed its registration application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). The Tribunal held that such an inadvertent error warranted correction and fresh adjudication rather than rejection.
