The Tribunal held that once transactions are treated as bogus, there is no basis for separately allowing expenses reflected in gross profit. Telescoping was therefore restricted to net income disclosed in the return.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already made additions on the exact issue for which reassessment was reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal held that documents relating to payments made to suppliers such as TS MARKFED and Sri Venkateshwara Agencies required proper verification. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Pune ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to fully verify expenditure claims unsupported by vouchers. The Tribunal held that random verification was insufficient where substantial cash expenses were claimed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation that unspent cash withdrawn for labour and petty expenses was redeposited into the same bank account. The Section 68 addition was consequently deleted.
Pune ITAT remanded the matter after the assessee explained that responses meant for the assessment appeal were inadvertently uploaded in the penalty appeal portal.
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.
