ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition based solely on discrepancies in unaudited Tally-generated statements was unsustainable. The Tribunal accepted the audited financial statements and ordered deletion of the ₹36.5 lakh addition.
The Tribunal accepted that part of the cash found with the assessee represented accumulated family savings intended for the medical treatment of his wife suffering from cancer. It granted relief of ₹12 lakh and sustained only ₹7.79 lakh as unexplained income.
ITAT held that interest earned on deposits kept as security for obtaining business loans was attributable to the cooperative society’s business activity. The income was therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Hyderabad ITAT found contradictions in the TPO’s reasoning for excluding a comparable company due to alleged lack of RPT data. The Tribunal directed fresh verification and recomputation of the RPT filter before deciding whether the company should remain excluded.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that no under-reporting of income existed where the income declared in the return filed under Section 148 was accepted without any addition. The penalty under Section 270A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the six-year limitation period under the unamended law expired on 31.03.2022. Since the notice under Section 148 was issued on 23.04.2022, it was time-barred. The reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment order were therefore quashed.
When an educational society was found to be substantially engaged in genuine charitable activities, its exemption could not be denied under Section 13(1)(b) simply because a few specific expenditures happened to benefit individuals from a particular religious community.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 after 31.03.2022 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149 and therefore invalid.
The Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) could not delete unexplained cash deposit additions merely on the basis of submissions and audit reports without supporting documents proving business transactions.
The Tribunal held that documents relating to payments made to suppliers such as TS MARKFED and Sri Venkateshwara Agencies required proper verification. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
