Tribunal ruled that disallowance for not filing Form 10 can only apply in the year of default, not later years of utilization. Addition of ₹80 lakh deleted.
ITAT ruled that ₹10 lakh deposit in demonetisation period, backed by gifts, savings, and sale of gold, cannot be treated as unexplained under section 69A.
The appellate authority held that additions cannot be sustained solely on external information without independent verification. Bogus purchase claims under Section 69A were deleted.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
The Supreme Court held that revision under Section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue. In this case, depreciation claimed by a loss-making entity was tax-neutral, so revision was invalid.
The ITAT Bangalore held that income from tissue culture and nursery operations forms part of agricultural income under Section 10(1) when integrated with land-based cultivation.
ITAT observed that applying an upper turnover filter is essential in transfer pricing cases where the assessee’s turnover is much lower. It ordered exclusion of big IT majors from the comparable list and directed fresh computation of ALP.
The ITAT Bangalore clarified that the presence of nominal and associate members does not automatically disqualify a cooperative society registered under the KCS Act from claiming Section 80P deduction. The case was remanded for the AO to verify if associate members complied with the 15% statutory ceiling under the KCS Act, upholding the principle that the AO cannot question the validity of the society’s registration itself.
The issue was whether a large cash holding was unexplained money under Section 69A post-demonetization. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, accepting that the cash originated from earlier, disclosed bank withdrawals. Key Takeaway: The burden of proof to disprove the source from prior withdrawals rests with the Department; mere suspicion isn’t enough for an addition.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that first proviso to Section 50C(1) is curative and retrospective, applying from A.Y. 2003-04. This allows taxpayer to compute capital gains based on stamp duty value prevailing on earlier MOU date (agreement date) instead of later, higher registration value, since part consideration was paid before registration.
