ITAT held that cash deposits during demonetization were explained as business sales declared under Section 44AD. Without disproving turnover, addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.
The AO completed assessment under Section 144 after alleged non-compliance, but failed to prove valid service of notice under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that absence of jurisdiction renders the entire proceedings null.
The PCIT questioned deduction under Section 80JJAA and CSR expenses but failed to record specific findings. The Tribunal held that absence of independent verification and reasoning renders the Section 263 order invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that since the assessment was legally correct when passed, invoking Section 154 after a later Supreme Court decision was impermissible. The addition was consequently deleted.
The Tribunal deleted ₹35.22 lakh added under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetisation. It held that audited books, recorded cash sales, and sufficient cash balance fully explained the deposits.
The Tribunal ruled that invoking Section 68 on member deposits of a cooperative society was unjustified. Proper books, cash records, and member-wise details were ignored by the AO.
ITAT held that once the concessional tax option under Section 115BAB is exercised in the first eligible year, it automatically applies to subsequent years. Technical defects in later returns cannot defeat the claim.
ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely because of an incorrect disclosure in the return. Documentary proof of running a school was decisive.
The Tribunal deleted addition under Section 69C, holding that payments made by company on behalf of director were properly explained through ledger records and imprest arrangement.
ITAT upheld deletion of additions where assessment was framed under the wrong provision. Since the year fell within the block period of a non-searched person, Section 153C was mandatory.
