ITAT Delhi held that cash deposits during demonetisation were fully explained by cash sales recorded in regular books. When books are not rejected and sales are accepted, separate addition is unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that section 234E fee cannot be imposed for periods before 01.06.2015. In absence of jurisdictional High Court ruling, the interpretation favourable to the assessee was adopted.
The dispute included disallowance under section 14A exceeding exempt income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt income and rejected a higher computation. The decision reinforces judicial limits on Rule 8D application.
The ruling clarifies that the benefit of extended timelines under TOLA was unavailable for A.Y. 2015–16. As a result, reassessment initiated after the cut-off date was held unsustainable.
ITAT held that employee stock option expenses are deductible as business expenditure. ESOP costs linked to employee compensation and revenue generation cannot be disallowed.
The issue involved purchases routed through entry providers to regularise grey-market transactions. The Tribunal held that taxing the whole purchase amount is incorrect; only excess profit may be assessed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was penalized without substantive evidence or effective cross-examination. Holding this contrary to principles of natural justice, the penalty was deleted. The case highlights procedural fairness in penalty matters.
The Tribunal held that a clerical error in the tax audit report, later corrected through a revised report, cannot be the basis for disallowance under section 143(1). Automated adjustments must reflect correct facts.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment based on a notice issued beyond the AO s pecuniary authority is unsustainable. Compliance with CBDT jurisdiction instructions was held mandatory.
The issue involved taxing a marginal valuation difference on property purchase. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the variation was below the statutory tolerance threshold. The decision confirms that minor deviations alone cannot be treated as taxable income.
