The issue was denial of concessional tax regime due to incorrect ITR disclosure and alleged delay in filing Form 10-IC. The Tribunal held that due date depends on the class of assessee, not procedural lapses, and allowed Section 115BAA benefit.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed when the trust merely facilitates transactions and costs are reimbursed. It emphasized the concept of real income and pass-through structure.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
The issue was reopening based on incorrect cash deposit figures exceeding ₹50 lakh. The Tribunal held actual amount was lower, making notice time-barred and invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad holds 12.5% profit estimation on ₹2.52 crore bank credits excessive; rejects commission agent claim due to lack of evidence but restricts income estimation to 4%, granting partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld reduced addition as earlier years’ rulings fixed profit element at 0.2%. It stressed that consistent facts require consistent treatment. Key takeaway: uniform approach must be followed across years.
ITAT Pune deletes ₹4.83 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that a bona fide difference in share valuation methods (NAV vs DCF) does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars; mere rejection of a claim cannot trigger penalty.
The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it. It held that violation of Rule 46A renders the order procedurally defective.
ITAT observed that the assessee provided invoices, bank records, and tax documents supporting purchases. Since sales were undisputed, full disallowance was unwarranted. The ruling highlights balanced approach in such cases.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 249(4)(b) cannot bar appeal where no income is admitted and no advance tax is payable; sets aside dismissal and directs AO to treat demonetisation cash deposits as business turnover (if normal) and estimate income u/s 44AD instead of Section 69A addition.
