The issue was whether retaining both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice renders the penalty void. The Tribunal ruled that failure to strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the proceedings. Penalties must be founded on precise allegations.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
The case questioned whether a cooperative banks audited expenses could be disallowed on a percentage basis for alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal ruled against arbitrary disallowance without defects in accounts.
This case involved a ₹1 crore cash deposit treated as unexplained by tax authorities. The Tribunal ruled that since the deposit was sourced from earlier withdrawals, the addition was unsustainable.
The dispute centered on profit estimation after reopening for suppressed turnover. The Tribunal affirmed lower NP for animal sales, recognising industry norms and assessee history. The ruling underscores tailoring estimates to trade economics.
The Tribunal reviewed an addition based on demonetisation-era cash deposits despite detailed hospital records being produced. It ruled that ignoring cash books and patient registers was unjustified.
The issue concerned whether failure to deduct TDS on foreign commission warranted disallowance. The Tribunal held that Section 195 is triggered only when the payment is chargeable to tax in India, reaffirming settled Supreme Court principles.
ITAT held that penalties under sections 271D and 271E cannot survive once the underlying additions are deleted. The ruling confirms that penalties collapse with the quantum.
Though some estimation was justified after rejection of books, a flat 1% rate was found arbitrary. The ITAT reduced the estimate to 0.50% aligned with prior years’ margins.
Cash deposited during demonetisation was explained as coming from income surrendered and accepted in an earlier survey. The Tribunal held that disbelief about holding cash cannot replace evidence and deleted the section 69A addition.
