The ITAT held that cash expenditure cannot be disallowed merely by aggregating payments. Since no payment to any person on a single day crossed the statutory limit, the disallowance was deleted.
The issue was whether interest-free loans to group entities warranted transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal held that since business had not commenced and no income was earned, the adjustment was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that cash deposited in demonetised notes cannot be taxed under Section 69A when it represents recorded business sales. The key takeaway is that duly accounted turnover cannot be treated as unexplained merely due to demonetisation.
The dispute arose from CPC denial of deduction due to late return filing. The Tribunal restored the matter, holding that the Assessing Officer must act based on the CCIT’s condonation decision.
The ITAT held that additions based on survey material cannot be sustained without proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after finding violation of natural justice.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could invoke section 68 in a limited scrutiny case focused on share premium under section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that, without mandatory approval to expand scrutiny, the addition was legally unsustainable.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked for allowing LTCG exemption on sale of investments. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer examined the claim, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial.
The tribunal examined whether gold jewellery seized during police interception could be taxed as unexplained solely based on a statement recorded under enquiry. It held that additions fail where later evidence shows the assessment relied on weak corroboration and inconsistent reasoning.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 was valid for multiple expense claims. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined issues and adopted a plausible view, revision was unsustainable.
The case examined the correct tax rate for a trust formed exclusively for employees’ benefit. The Tribunal held that such trusts are taxable at normal AOP rates under section 164(1)(iv).
