The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accepted by the Department. In the absence of justification for a higher rate, the GP estimation was reduced from 4% to 3.13%.
SEBI overturned an earlier order that had exonerated the company, holding that key transactions allegedly created a misleading picture of its financial position. The ruling emphasizes that approvals and disclosures cannot override scrutiny of the economic substance of transactions affecting investors.
The assessee challenged an ex parte reassessment order that treated property investment as unexplained under Section 69. ITAT held that adequate opportunity should be provided before sustaining substantial additions and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that condonation of delay by the competent authority removes the statutory obstacle created by Section 80AC for late-filed returns. As a result, the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80P must be reconsidered in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that a genuine and reasonable explanation for delay justified condonation of nearly three years. It emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations when no mala fide intent is established.
The assessee sought deduction for property tax paid during the relevant financial year but failed to claim it in the return. The ITAT granted another opportunity and ordered verification of the claim on merits.
ITAT held that the assessee discharged the primary burden under Section 68 by producing complete documentary evidence regarding the lender and the loan transaction. The addition was deleted because the Revenue failed to disprove the evidence.
The assessee contended that cash deposits in the bank account represented sales proceeds from a medicine business. The ITAT remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify turnover details and determine taxable income on a reasonable basis.
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.
