Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making a 10% purchase disallowance. The addition was deleted as it was based only on assumptions derived from portal data.
ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capital gains purposes. It therefore directed taxation in AY 2018-19 and allowed the Section 54 claim.
ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and bank records. The Tribunal ruled that additions under Section 69A cannot be sustained merely on suspicion.
The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding supporting invoices, confirmations, and banking records on record.
ITAT Rajkot held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income. The Tribunal upheld restriction of the addition to 13.7% instead of the full purchase amount.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire transaction value. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter on merits after considering documentary evidence.
