The Assessing Officer imposed penalty after treating disclosed capital gains as business income. The Tribunal ruled that classification disputes, without suppression of facts, cannot justify penalty.
The issue was whether reassessment based on identical, template reasons was valid. The Tribunal held that reopening without independent application of mind amounts to borrowed satisfaction and is invalid in law.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a ₹2.27 crore addition after finding that the capital deposit did not pertain to the assessment year in question. Without a year-wise nexus, section 68 could not be invoked.
The case clarifies that commission paid to foreign agents for export facilitation abroad cannot be disallowed for non-deduction of tax. Absence of income accrual in India was decisive.
The issue was whether a trust with mixed charitable and religious objects could be denied 80G approval. The Tribunal held that composite trusts are eligible if religious expenditure stays within statutory limits, and directed grant of approval.
The ITAT upheld revision under Section 263 where the Assessing Officer accepted large demonetisation cash deposits without proper verification. Failure to examine utilisation of withdrawals or call for a cash book rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Revenue sought to tax total on-money collected under section 69A. The ITAT ruled that on-money forms part of business receipts and must be assessed on a profit basis. The key takeaway is that taxation cannot ignore unaccounted expenses linked to such receipts.
No on-money addition was made in the cases of other co-owners of the same property. The ITAT held that the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stand on identical facts.
The issue was whether a buyer could be taxed for alleged cash payment based only on the seller’s admission. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, no on-money addition can be sustained in the buyer’s hands.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
