The Tribunal held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed when the trust merely facilitates transactions and costs are reimbursed. It emphasized the concept of real income and pass-through structure.
The issue was whether contractor deposits could be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held they were genuine trade liabilities, not taxable under Section 68.
The issue was reopening based on incorrect cash deposit figures exceeding ₹50 lakh. The Tribunal held actual amount was lower, making notice time-barred and invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad holds 12.5% profit estimation on ₹2.52 crore bank credits excessive; rejects commission agent claim due to lack of evidence but restricts income estimation to 4%, granting partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It clarified that co-operative banks are to be treated as co-operative societies. The ruling resolves disputes on eligibility of such income.
ITAT ruled that selling and distribution expenses cannot form part of work-in-progress. Such costs do not contribute to inventory creation and must be treated as revenue expenditure. The decision reinforces accounting standards in tax treatment.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained without incriminating material directly connecting the assessee to alleged cash payments. Reliance solely on third-party data was found insufficient. The ruling reinforces the need for concrete evidence in tax additions.
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 held that additions under Section 153C cannot be sustained when based on unverified third-party statements and documents. It found the evidence lacked credibility and was not corroborated. The ruling highlights strict evidentiary standards in search-based assessments.
