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.
The Tribunal quashed penalty where the AO did not specify the exact limb of misreporting under Section 270A(9). It held that vague notices invalidate penalty proceedings. Key takeaway: specificity is mandatory for penalty levy.
ITAT Hyderabad holds that Section 68 cannot apply to opening balances; remands ₹55.53 lakh addition for verification, directing AO to examine prior-year records and delete addition if no fresh credit arose during the year.
ITAT ruled that on-money represents business receipts and not pure income. Only profit portion can be taxed, rejecting full addition. The decision reinforces distinction between receipts and income.
The Tribunal restored the case as the CIT(A) confirmed additions without granting adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that failure to consider explanations violates natural justice. Key takeaway: fair hearing is essential even in faceless assessments.
The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 69A since the evidence pertained to a partnership firm. It held that without proof of personal receipt, income cannot be taxed in the partner’s hands.
