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.
The Tribunal held that a Section 54 exemption can be claimed in a reassessment return if it directly relates to escaped income. Delay or non-filing of the original return under Section 139(1) alone cannot defeat a substantive deduction.
The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when the assessee explains the manner of earning income and pays due tax, no penalty is leviable.
The issue was whether a flat 12.5% disallowance on alleged bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal ruled that when sales are accepted and books are not rejected, only a lower, reasonable estimation can apply, capping it at 5%.
