ITAT Pune struck down a ₹34.28 lakh penalty issued after the company had merged, citing substantive illegality. Penalty orders must be issued in the name of a legally existing entity.
The assessee failed to file returns for two years preceding the capital increase. The Tribunal held that unexplained capital accretion must be taxed under section 68.
ITAT Surat struck down a 50% turnover-based income estimation, applying Section 44AD to compute actual presumptive profit at 8%. Key takeaway: AO cannot inflate income without legal basis.
The Tribunal held that a bare endorsement like fit case does not amount to valid sanction. Absence of independent application of mind invalidates the entire reassessment.
The revision questioned deduction on interest income allowed under section 80P. The Tribunal held that where the AO adopts a legally plausible view after enquiry, section 263 cannot be invoked.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
The dispute centered on unexplained investment taxed in an incorrect year. The Tribunal ruled that such an addition is legally unsustainable and must be deleted.
The exemption was rejected only due to delayed electronic filing of Form 10. The Tribunal ruled that procedural delay cannot override substantive compliance made before assessment completion.
The dispute concerned cancellation of IDS benefits due to non-payment. The Tribunal held that once IDS lapses, undisclosed income is taxable with mandatory penalty.
The dispute centered on whether appeals could be dismissed merely on filing a VSV application. The Tribunal ruled that rejection or non-approval of VSV keeps appeals alive.
