Tribunal observed that it is for the businessman to decide how to organise business finances unless there is evidence of tax evasion. It deleted the Section 68 addition after finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of funds.
ITAT Delhi held that merely reflecting depreciation in an incorrect schedule of the income tax return could not justify an addition under Section 69. Following its earlier decision in the assessee’s own case, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Tribunal ruled that questions relating to loans and advances are matters for assessment proceedings and not sufficient grounds to reject renewal of registration. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued after the surviving limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court were invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and assessment orders were quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
ITAT Chennai held that revision under Section 263 could not survive on the issue of prior period expenditure after the Assessing Officer verified and accepted the claim in the consequential assessment. The revision was sustained only on the remaining issues.
ITAT held that Accounting Standard-19 governs accounting treatment but does not determine tax treatment under the Income-tax Act. It ruled that depreciation belongs to the legal owner while lease rentals remain deductible for the lessee.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 252-day delay after finding that the assessees legal representatives had shown sufficient cause arising from illness, death and family disputes. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without evaluating the delay condonation application and restored the matter for decision on merits.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Transfer Pricing Officer could not arbitrarily determine the arm’s length price of management services at nil despite evidence establishing receipt of services. The Tribunal restored the assessees TNMM-based benchmarking by following its earlier decision.
The ITAT held that the assessment was invalid because it was completed by an Income Tax Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment was quashed without examining the additions on merits.
The ITAT Surat held that cash deposited during demonetisation was sufficiently explained through opening cash-in-hand, prior bank withdrawals, and cash received from the deceased husband. It ruled that Section 69A addition could not be sustained merely on assumptions about human conduct.
