The ITAT Delhi held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without year-wise incriminating material could not validly confer jurisdiction under Section 153C. It quashed the assessments after following the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shaksham Commodities Ltd.
Bangalore ITAT held that BSNL employees who received retrenchment compensation under the 2019 VRS were entitled to exemption under Section 10(10B) and full leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA). The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and granted relief on merits.
The ITAT held that Section 68 could not be applied to sale proceeds received from investments already recorded in the books in an earlier year. While the reassessment was upheld, the additions towards alleged accommodation entries and commission were deleted.
Bangalore ITAT held that cash redeposited during demonetisation could not be treated as unexplained under Section 69A when the assessee established that it originated from earlier bank withdrawals.
Bangalore ITAT held that customer deposits representing sale proceeds could not be taxed in full as unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate business income at 8% of the receipts, holding that only the profit element was taxable.
Bangalore ITAT deleted the addition under Section 69A after holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits with supporting documents and the Assessing Officer failed to disprove the explanation.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained where they were sourced from earlier withdrawals from the same bank account. It ruled that, in the absence of evidence showing the withdrawn cash was used elsewhere, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The ITAT ruled that failure to produce confirmations from debtors did not justify additions where sales, ledger accounts, and sample invoices were already on record. It directed deletion of the additions after finding no contrary evidence from the Revenue.
The ITAT ruled that bonus payments recorded in a separate bonus ledger, audit report, and profit and loss account could not be disallowed merely because they were absent from the salary ledger.
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash deposits recorded in audited books of account could not be treated as unexplained merely because they included specified bank notes. Since the Revenue found no defects in the books or evidence of bogus receipts, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
