The Delhi ITAT held that cash deposits sourced from recorded cash sales cannot be treated as unexplained credits once the sales and books of account are accepted. The Tribunal deleted the Section 68 addition as it resulted in double taxation of the same income.
The ITAT Delhi held that only 1% of the gross bank transactions could be assessed as income after finding that the assessee acted as a commission agent. It upheld the CIT(A)’s reliance on the consistent approach adopted in the preceding assessment year.
The ITAT held that sales tax subsidy granted under industrial incentive schemes constituted a capital receipt because its purpose was industrial development rather than business profits. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed and the subsidy was excluded from taxable income and book profits.
The Tribunal relied on earlier findings that the lending entities were paper concerns engaged in providing accommodation entries. The unsecured loans were treated as unexplained cash credits.
The ITAT Mumbai held that where additions were based on seized material from a third-party search, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147. The assessment was declared invalid.
The Tribunal held that the entire unaccounted turnover from alleged on-money receipts cannot be treated as taxable income. It ruled that reasonable hidden expenditure must be considered while estimating profits.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that confirmations and banking documents alone were insufficient to establish genuine unsecured loans. The addition under Section 68 and related interest disallowance were upheld.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the doctrine of merger did not bar revision under Section 263 because the applicability of Section 50C was never considered during the reassessment or appellate proceedings. It upheld the revision while directing fresh consideration of the property’s valuation through the prescribed statutory mechanism.
The ITAT Kolkata held that electricity supplied by captive power plants should be benchmarked using the tariff charged by State Electricity Boards to industrial consumers for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. It upheld deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment by following Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court rulings.
The ITAT Delhi held that an appeal against an assessment order under Section 143(3) was not maintainable where no fresh additions or adverse findings were made. It ruled that the taxpayer’s grievance related to the earlier Section 143(1) order.
