The Tribunal held that VAT input credit shown only in the balance sheet cannot be taxed as income. It upheld deletion of VAT, commission, and notional interest additions, dismissing the revenue’s appeal.
The Tribunal found that the addition was inferential and lacked corroborative evidence of concealment. It concluded that penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.
Tribunal held that interest disallowance for non-deduction of TDS must be restricted to 30% under amended provisions. It also remanded issue of estimated interest on interest-free advances for verification.
Tribunal held that earlier expense disallowances were excessive and reduced them to 10% of turnover. The ruling emphasizes that lack of supporting documents justifies estimation but requires reasonable limits.
The PCIT held the AO’s assessment under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, directing fresh verification of various deductions. The assessee argued all claims were correctly examined, questioning the jurisdiction of section 263.
ITAT Bangalore held that assets received for testing purpose and there is no specific benefit that arises to the assessee with respect to usage of those assets, the same is not taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition based on ad hoc method not justifiable since assessee followed Percentage of Completion Method for revenue recognition adhering to guidance note on Accounting of Real Estate Transactions issued by ICAI. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not examine or reason with respect to substantial documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure proper evaluation of bank statements, ledger entries, and receipts.
The ITAT determined that the tax department failed to adhere to the statutory deadline for issuing a Section 148 notice, making the reassessment jurisdiction invalid from the start. The ruling confirms that strict adherence to the extended limitation period is mandatory, and failure to comply results in the entire reassessment being quashed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB could not be levied because no incriminating documents were found during the search. It ruled that mere surrender of income does not constitute undisclosed income under the statutory definition.
