The ITAT held that an opening cash balance cannot be treated as unexplained merely because the previous year’s income tax return reflected nil cash. It deleted the addition after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding accumulated withdrawals from taxed income.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure without adequately verifying the records or confronting the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any material establishing a connection between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider. It upheld the deletion of the Section 69A addition for lack of supporting evidence.
The ITAT held that estimating profit at 8% on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts was excessive considering the nature and margins of the electronics trading business. It reduced the estimated net profit rate to 3%.
ITAT Guwahati held that additions could not be sustained where the transactions related to a separate partnership firm with a different PAN and different partners. The Tribunal deleted the additions due to lack of evidence linking those transactions to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that where the variation between the issue price and fair market value is within the 10% safe harbour under Rule 11UA, the issue price is deemed to be the FMV. The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was therefore deleted.
The Madras High Court refused to condone a 15-day delay, observing that the delayed intra-court appeal appeared to be an attempt to evade or defer tax payment. It, however, allowed the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
ITAT Delhi held that a notice under Section 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer without a valid transfer order under Section 127 rendered the assessment invalid. The assessment was quashed without examining the merits.
NCLT Mumbai directed meetings of shareholders and unsecured creditors of the listed company while dispensing with meetings for other applicant companies due to unanimous written consents. The order lays down the procedural framework for considering the composite demerger and amalgamation scheme.
The ITAT held that cash deposited during demonetization was adequately explained through instrument charges consistently disclosed in earlier years. It deleted the addition under Section 69A after finding the source of cash established.
