The ITAT held that cash redeposited after a clearly documented bank withdrawal cannot be treated as unexplained. The ruling emphasizes that verifiable fund movement defeats section 69A additions.
The issue was whether a reassessment notice issued after the prescribed time limit was valid. The Tribunal held that notices for the relevant year issued after the cut-off date were barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment void.
The ITAT held that land-levelling and fencing expenses are integral to acquiring agricultural land and qualify for section 54B deduction. The ruling clarifies what constitutes eligible investment despite restricting unregistered costs.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
Noting that exemption was allowed in multiple subsequent years on identical facts, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s stand. The addition and denial of exemption were accordingly set aside.
The ITAT held that taxing only TDS credit, while leaving the underlying undisclosed commission untaxed, is a patent error. Section 263 revision was rightly invoked to protect revenue.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries into goodwill depreciation. A plausible view taken after scrutiny cannot be branded as erroneous.
ITAT held that arm’s length price for electricity supplied to related entities must be benchmarked against the gross tariff charged by the State Electricity Authority. Excluding mandatory charges distorts comparability and is impermissible.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked to deny 80P deduction on interest from co-operative bank deposits. The ITAT held that such revision is invalid when the AO has taken a legally settled and permissible view.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, e-way bills, banking payments, and valid GST registration at the time of supply cannot be treated as bogus. Subsequent GST cancellation and non-response by suppliers were held insufficient to justify disallowance.
