The Tribunal ruled that incorrect computation of opening and closing stock during survey cannot justify full addition. Only the reconciled excess stock amount already offered to tax was sustained.
The Tribunal found that additions under unexplained money provisions cannot be sustained where the assessee provides credible documentary evidence. Suspicion without inquiry cannot replace factual verification.
The Tribunal held that year of acquisition is determined by payment and handing over of possession under Section 2(47)(v), not by later registration date. Earlier CII was allowed for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that examining the donor’s creditworthiness and seeking income-tax returns at the registration stage is beyond the scope of section 12AB. Registration cannot be denied on such grounds when charitable objects and activities are genuine.
ITAT Bangalore held that mere long-pending sundry creditors cannot be taxed under Section 41(1) unless there is actual remission or legal cessation of liability. Continued reflection of liabilities in books prevents addition as income.
ITAT Bangalore held that a Souhadra Sahakari registered under the Karnataka Souhadra Sahakari Act qualifies as a co-operative society under Section 2(19). Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed, and related additions were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that timely filing is mandatory for Chapter VI-A deductions and belated returns cannot claim Section 80P benefits. It followed binding High Court precedent and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority exceeded jurisdiction by restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the deemed dividend addition on merits as raised in appeal.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits made during demonetization cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 68 if sufficient cash balance is recorded in regular books of account.
The Tribunal held that after submission of primary creditor details, the burden shifted to the AO to disprove the claim. The case was remanded to ensure fair opportunity and proper inquiry.
