The Tribunal upheld deletion of an ad-hoc expense addition where the Assessing Officer failed to point out defects in audited accounts. Proper documentation shifted the burden back to the tax authority.
ITAT held that share capital additions cannot rest on an inspector’s report not shared with the assessee. Matter remanded for fresh examination in line with natural justice.
ITAT held that Section 68 cannot be invoked where donors are identified with names, PAN, ITRs, and confirmations. Such donations cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits or anonymous income.
The Tribunal ruled that additions based only on presumptions and low income of subscribers are invalid. Proper documentary evidence outweighs non-appearance under summons.
The Tribunal ruled that payments made directly to truck drivers, and not transporters, fall outside Section 40A(3) limits when within the statutory threshold. Additions based on incorrect assumptions were set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether repayment of earlier loans could be taxed as unexplained money. It held that once loans were accepted as genuine and repayment sources were explained, no addition could survive.
The issue was whether revision under Section 263 was valid when the Assessing Officer accepted returns without proper inquiry after a search. The Tribunal upheld revision, holding that lack of meaningful verification made the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether alleged commission on bogus donations could be taxed as unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal held that once the donation amount itself is offered to tax, the source stands explained and Section 69C cannot be invoked.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after the extended period under TOLA were valid. The Tribunal held that post–Rajeev Bansal, notices beyond the surviving limitation are time-barred and void.
