The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained where the tax department failed to establish actual receipt of interest income. The key takeaway is that presumptions and notings in seized documents cannot substitute proof of income.
The Tribunal held that an investigation report against a supplier is only a starting point for inquiry and not conclusive proof against the assessee. The key takeaway is that additions require independent evidence relating to the assessee’s own transactions
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
Where ITAT directed inclusion of Cepha Imaging Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable solely on the basis that it satisfied the export turnover filter without examining its functional comparability with assessee, and further directed inclusion of CG Vak Software & Exports Ltd.
Addition of ₹11.14 crore on account of alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained without first verifying the assessee’s claim that purchases worth approximately ₹11.07 crore had been reversed in its books and were never claimed as a deduction while computing taxable income.
Pune ITAT observed that the Revenue had accepted the assessee’s scrap business in earlier and later years by estimating profit on turnover. The ruling held that this history must be considered before treating deposits as unexplained income.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 68 does not distinguish between business advances and loans when unexplained credits appear in the books. The key takeaway is that real estate developers must prove the source and credibility of customer advances.
Pune ITAT held that once TNMM is accepted for a taxpayer’s aggregated international transactions, the TPO cannot isolate a single transaction and apply a different method. The ruling deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and reinforced consistency in benchmarking.
Pune ITAT held that Section 43CA is prospective and applies only from Assessment Year 2014-15 onward to eligible transactions. Agreements executed before the provisions introduction remain outside its scope.
Mumbai ITAT ruled that where a capital asset was acquired before 01.04.2001, the claim for adopting fair market value as on that date must be examined on merits. The key takeaway is that statutory valuation rights cannot be rejected on technical grounds alone.
