Delhi ITAT held that issues relating to source of donations and cash deposits should generally be examined during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Section 12AB.
The ITAT ruled that when the Revenue accepts business turnover and sales activity, corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts cannot again be added as unexplained cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal restricted the addition only to estimation of reasonable profit.
The ITAT held that once profit is estimated on unaccounted sales, separate additions for wages and operational expenditure cannot be made again under section 69C. The ruling treated such additions as double taxation of the same income stream.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond six years under Section 153C are permissible only where escaped income represented in the form of assets exceeds or is likely to exceed Rs. 50 lakh. Since this statutory condition was not satisfied, the assessments were annulled as time-barred.
The ITAT held that cash deposited by a money transfer agent during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained income when the funds belonged to principal payment service providers. The Tribunal observed that the assessee merely acted as a collection agent and transferred the amounts to the principals.
The Bangalore Bench held that filing Form No. 10B along with the return is directory and not mandatory in circumstances where the audit report becomes available during appeal proceedings. Relief under Sections 11 and 12A was restored.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer wrongly stated that the original return was never scrutinized. The Tribunal ruled that such factual errors while recording reasons showed complete non-application of mind.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings beyond the prescribed period were invalid where alleged escaped income arose from unaccounted sales and not from assets. The Tribunal ruled that conditions under Sections 149 and 153A were not satisfied, leading to quashing of multiple reassessment notices.
ITAT held that loose sheets showing cash and cheque transactions could not justify additions under Section 153A where related cheque transactions were accepted as genuine and linked to group business dealings.
The ITAT held that a penalty notice without specifying whether the case involved under-reporting or misreporting of income is legally unsustainable. The Tribunal ruled that such defective notices are void-ab-initio and cannot support penalty proceedings.
