The ITAT partially allowed the assessee’s appeal, deleting Rs.26.16 lakh of the unexplained cash deposit added under Section 68 for the demonetisation period. The ruling emphasizes that tax authorities should make a fair estimation when the assessee’s explanation has partial merit, even if the documentary proof is insufficient to justify the whole claim.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that while purchases from a blacklisted entity were not fully proven, the entire amount couldn’t be added to income as corresponding sales were accepted. Following Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a 5% profit markup over the declared Gross Profit rate of 12.63%, thereby deleting the majority of the original Rs. 92,20,100 addition.
The Base Metal Chemicals vs ACIT case examines the validity of large tax additions made by the AO on conversion charges, partner payments, under-invoiced sales, and stock valuation. The key issue was whether the additions were based on commercial reality or mere presumption.
The ITAT confirmed that a commission paid to non-resident agents operating solely abroad, without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is not taxable in the country. This finding resulted in the cancellation of the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax.
The Tribunal ruled that an HUF, the beneficial owner of the income, cant be denied TDS credit just because the tax was initially shown in the Kartas PAN. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to verify subsequent compliance with Rule 37BA(2) and the updated Form 26AS to prevent the Revenues unjust enrichment.
The Tribunal ruled that cash deposits during demonetisation, sourced from verifiable housing loan withdrawals, were explained and not unexplained income. Following the P&H HC, the ITAT held that the retention of cash for construction, even for a long time, doesnt justify the addition when the source is proven.
The Tribunal held that the Jurisdictional AO lacked the legal authority to issue the Section 148 notice after the CBDTs notification mandating the Faceless AO. Since the foundation of the reopening was flawed, the subsequent additions of over ₹1.5 Crore were deleted, and the entire assessment order was quashed.
The appellate tribunal affirmed that the crucial factor for allowing full depreciation is that the seller had not claimed any depreciation on the assets transferred in the slump sale. The ruling confirms that meeting the 180-day use condition for assets, including acquired goodwill, fully satisfies Section 32(1) requirements.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by rejecting the explanation (withdrawal via bearer cheque) simply because the assessee had not used that method before. The ruling emphasized that the Department cannot reject a proven source unless it brings contrary evidence of an alternate undisclosed source.
ITAT Hyderabad remanded a reassessment case to verify the dispatch date of the Section 148 notice (speed post/email). The ruling, guided by the Delhi HC s Suman Jeet Agarwal case, states the date of delivery to the post office determines the notice’s validity.
